Accuracy of triage systems for mass casualty incidents in live simulations - a systematic review.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Danish medical journal Pub Date : 2023-10-06
Christian Elleby Marcussen, Karoline Bendix Bräuner, Henrik Alstrøm, Ann Merete Møller
{"title":"Accuracy of triage systems for mass casualty incidents in live simulations - a systematic review.","authors":"Christian Elleby Marcussen, Karoline Bendix Bräuner, Henrik Alstrøm, Ann Merete Møller","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In mass casualty incidents, insufficient triage may lead to increased morbidity and mortality due to delayed evacuation and treatment of the most critically injured patients. We report current litterature findings on accuracy of primary prehospital triage systems for mass casualty incidents in full-scale live simulations and map the challenges that lie ahead for finding the most accurate triage system.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was registered with PROSPERO ID: CRD42018091889. We searched the databases EMBASE, MEDLINE, Central, Web of Science, Reference lists, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar. We included primary triage systems, studies reporting accuracy or outcomes convertible to accuracy and studies performed in full-scale live simulations. We excluded studies using paediatric, chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear populations or triage systems. Bias rating was based on a modified version of the QUADAS-2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 15 studies were included. Six of 41 existing triage methods were tested. The studies showed substantial heterogeneity in both study characteristics and findings. Different reference standards were applied and most were based on author-defined triage categories. All studies carried an unclear-to-high risk of bias. Therefore, no quantitative comparisons were made.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In general, the studies suffered from substantial heterogeneity and risk of bias. A standardised protocol for future live simulations is needed to encourage consistent and comparable data collection. We identified some of the most important topics to address in such a protocol.</p>","PeriodicalId":11119,"journal":{"name":"Danish medical journal","volume":"70 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Danish medical journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: In mass casualty incidents, insufficient triage may lead to increased morbidity and mortality due to delayed evacuation and treatment of the most critically injured patients. We report current litterature findings on accuracy of primary prehospital triage systems for mass casualty incidents in full-scale live simulations and map the challenges that lie ahead for finding the most accurate triage system.

Methods: This study was registered with PROSPERO ID: CRD42018091889. We searched the databases EMBASE, MEDLINE, Central, Web of Science, Reference lists, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar. We included primary triage systems, studies reporting accuracy or outcomes convertible to accuracy and studies performed in full-scale live simulations. We excluded studies using paediatric, chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear populations or triage systems. Bias rating was based on a modified version of the QUADAS-2.

Results: A total of 15 studies were included. Six of 41 existing triage methods were tested. The studies showed substantial heterogeneity in both study characteristics and findings. Different reference standards were applied and most were based on author-defined triage categories. All studies carried an unclear-to-high risk of bias. Therefore, no quantitative comparisons were made.

Conclusion: In general, the studies suffered from substantial heterogeneity and risk of bias. A standardised protocol for future live simulations is needed to encourage consistent and comparable data collection. We identified some of the most important topics to address in such a protocol.

现场模拟中大规模伤亡事件分诊系统的准确性——系统综述。
引言:在大规模伤亡事件中,由于最严重受伤患者的疏散和治疗延迟,分诊不足可能会导致发病率和死亡率增加。我们在全面的现场模拟中报告了目前关于大规模伤亡事件的院前初级分诊系统准确性的研究结果,并描绘了寻找最准确的分诊系统所面临的挑战。方法:本研究注册于PROSPERO ID:CRD42018091889。我们搜索了数据库EMBASE、MEDLINE、Central、Web of Science、参考文献列表、Scopus、ClinicalTrials.gov和Google Scholar。我们包括初级分诊系统、报告准确性或可转换为准确性的结果的研究以及在全尺寸现场模拟中进行的研究。我们排除了使用儿科、化学、生物、放射或核人群或分诊系统的研究。偏倚评级基于QUADAS-2的修改版本。结果:共纳入15项研究。对现有的41种分诊方法中的6种进行了测试。这些研究在研究特征和发现方面都显示出显著的异质性。采用了不同的参考标准,大多数是基于作者定义的分类类别。所有研究都存在不清楚到高风险的偏倚。因此,没有进行定量比较。结论:总体而言,这些研究存在显著的异质性和偏倚风险。需要为未来的现场模拟制定标准化协议,以鼓励一致和可比的数据收集。我们确定了在这样一项议定书中需要处理的一些最重要的议题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Danish medical journal
Danish medical journal MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
78
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Danish Medical Journal (DMJ) is a general medical journal. The journal publish original research in English – conducted in or in relation to the Danish health-care system. When writing for the Danish Medical Journal please remember target audience which is the general reader. This means that the research area should be relevant to many readers and the paper should be presented in a way that most readers will understand the content. DMJ will publish the following articles: • Original articles • Protocol articles from large randomized clinical trials • Systematic reviews and meta-analyses • PhD theses from Danish faculties of health sciences • DMSc theses from Danish faculties of health sciences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信