FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2091567775> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2091567775 endingPage "676.e7" @default.
• W2091567775 startingPage "668" @default.
• W2091567775 abstract "Study objective A variety of methods have been proposed and used in disaster triage situations, but there is little more than expert opinion to support most of them. Anecdotal disaster experiences often report mediocre real-world triage accuracy. The study objective was to determine the accuracy of several disaster triage methods when predicting clinically important outcomes in a large cohort of trauma victims. Methods Pediatric, adult, and geriatric trauma victims from the National Trauma Data Bank were assigned triage levels, using each of 6 disaster triage methods: simple triage and rapid treatment (START), Fire Department of New York (FDNY), CareFlight, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Sacco Score, and Unadjusted Sacco Score. Methods for approximating triage systems were vetted by subject matter experts. Triage assignments were compared against patient mortality at hospital discharge with area under the receiver operator curve. Secondary outcomes included death in the emergency department, use of a ventilator, and lengths of stay. Subgroup analysis assessed triage accuracy in patients by age, trauma type, and sex. Results In this study, 530,695 records were included. The Sacco Score predicted mortality most accurately, with area under the receiver operator curve of 0.883 (95% confidence interval 0.880 to 0.885), and performed well in most subgroups. FDNY was more accurate than START for adults but less accurate for children. CareFlight was best for burn victims, with area under the receiver operator curve of 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.85 to 0.89) but mistriaged more salvageable trauma patients to “dead/black” (41% survived) than did other disaster triage methods (≈10% survived). Conclusion Among 6 disaster triage methods compared against actual outcomes in trauma registry patients, the Sacco Score predicted mortality most accurately. This analysis highlighted comparative strengths and weakness of START, FDNY, CareFlight, and Sacco, suggesting areas in which each might be improved. The GCS predicted outcomes similarly to dedicated disaster triage strategies. A variety of methods have been proposed and used in disaster triage situations, but there is little more than expert opinion to support most of them. Anecdotal disaster experiences often report mediocre real-world triage accuracy. The study objective was to determine the accuracy of several disaster triage methods when predicting clinically important outcomes in a large cohort of trauma victims. Pediatric, adult, and geriatric trauma victims from the National Trauma Data Bank were assigned triage levels, using each of 6 disaster triage methods: simple triage and rapid treatment (START), Fire Department of New York (FDNY), CareFlight, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Sacco Score, and Unadjusted Sacco Score. Methods for approximating triage systems were vetted by subject matter experts. Triage assignments were compared against patient mortality at hospital discharge with area under the receiver operator curve. Secondary outcomes included death in the emergency department, use of a ventilator, and lengths of stay. Subgroup analysis assessed triage accuracy in patients by age, trauma type, and sex. In this study, 530,695 records were included. The Sacco Score predicted mortality most accurately, with area under the receiver operator curve of 0.883 (95% confidence interval 0.880 to 0.885), and performed well in most subgroups. FDNY was more accurate than START for adults but less accurate for children. CareFlight was best for burn victims, with area under the receiver operator curve of 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.85 to 0.89) but mistriaged more salvageable trauma patients to “dead/black” (41% survived) than did other disaster triage methods (≈10% survived). Among 6 disaster triage methods compared against actual outcomes in trauma registry patients, the Sacco Score predicted mortality most accurately. This analysis highlighted comparative strengths and weakness of START, FDNY, CareFlight, and Sacco, suggesting areas in which each might be improved. The GCS predicted outcomes similarly to dedicated disaster triage strategies." @default.
• W2091567775 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2091567775 creator A5042694654 @default.
• W2091567775 creator A5062359953 @default.
• W2091567775 date "2013-06-01" @default.
• W2091567775 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2091567775 title "Head-to-Head Comparison of Disaster Triage Methods in Pediatric, Adult, and Geriatric Patients" @default.
• W2091567775 cites W1603121691 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W1980445644 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W1983378736 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W1987996984 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W1991893876 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W1996852289 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W2001387206 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W2007472861 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W2021869264 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W2025780256 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W2027316597 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W2051834408 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W2053241712 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W2056609799 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W2063433236 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W2080131813 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W2082691411 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W2082763883 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W2092309176 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W2093297120 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W2116858924 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W2132117844 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W2145283193 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W2153670683 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W2154799752 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W2160546218 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W2314210721 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W2411478142 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W4233251519 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W4251455601 @default.
• W2091567775 cites W4293108385 @default.
• W2091567775 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.12.023" @default.
• W2091567775 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23465555" @default.
• W2091567775 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2091567775 type Work @default.
• W2091567775 sameAs 2091567775 @default.
• W2091567775 citedByCount "63" @default.
• W2091567775 countsByYear W20915677752013 @default.
• W2091567775 countsByYear W20915677752014 @default.
• W2091567775 countsByYear W20915677752015 @default.
• W2091567775 countsByYear W20915677752016 @default.
• W2091567775 countsByYear W20915677752017 @default.
• W2091567775 countsByYear W20915677752018 @default.
• W2091567775 countsByYear W20915677752019 @default.
• W2091567775 countsByYear W20915677752020 @default.
• W2091567775 countsByYear W20915677752021 @default.
• W2091567775 countsByYear W20915677752022 @default.
• W2091567775 countsByYear W20915677752023 @default.
• W2091567775 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2091567775 hasAuthorship W2091567775A5042694654 @default.
• W2091567775 hasAuthorship W2091567775A5062359953 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConcept C17624336 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConcept C190385971 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConcept C194828623 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConcept C2777120189 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConcept C2777981362 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConcept C2780724011 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConcept C3017944768 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConcept C3019520628 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConcept C44249647 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConcept C545542383 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConcept C58471807 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConceptScore W2091567775C118552586 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConceptScore W2091567775C126322002 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConceptScore W2091567775C141071460 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConceptScore W2091567775C17624336 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConceptScore W2091567775C190385971 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConceptScore W2091567775C194828623 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConceptScore W2091567775C2777120189 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConceptScore W2091567775C2777981362 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConceptScore W2091567775C2780724011 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConceptScore W2091567775C3017944768 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConceptScore W2091567775C3019520628 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConceptScore W2091567775C44249647 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConceptScore W2091567775C545542383 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConceptScore W2091567775C58471807 @default.
• W2091567775 hasConceptScore W2091567775C71924100 @default.
• W2091567775 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W2091567775 hasLocation W20915677751 @default.
• W2091567775 hasLocation W20915677752 @default.
• W2091567775 hasOpenAccess W2091567775 @default.
• W2091567775 hasPrimaryLocation W20915677751 @default.
• W2091567775 hasRelatedWork W1832617248 @default.
• W2091567775 hasRelatedWork W1990875308 @default.
• W2091567775 hasRelatedWork W2008324010 @default.
• W2091567775 hasRelatedWork W2072846272 @default.
• W2091567775 hasRelatedWork W2095526866 @default.

• next