An Assessment of Clinical Accuracy of Vital Sign-based Triage Tools Among U.S. and Coalition Forces.

This study retrospectively applied seven triage tools to a database of 12,268 cases from the Department of Defense Trauma Registry to evaluate their performance in predicting early death or massive transfusion in combat. All scoring systems performed well with an AUROC >0.8 for both outcomes. Although the SI and MSI performed best for predicting massive transfusion (both had an AUROC of 0.89), they ranked last for assessment of mortality within 24 hours, with the other tools performing well. START, RTS, NTS, MGAP and GAP reliably identified early death and need for massive transfusion, with MGAP and GAP performing the best overall. These findings highlight the importance of assessing triage tools to best manage resources and ultimately preserve lives of traumatically wounded warfighters. Further studies are needed to explain the surprising performance discrepancy of the SI and MSI in predicting early death and massive transfusion.