Skip to main content

Table 3 START and TTAS protocols for predicting disposition (ED discharge vs. observation/admission/death)

From: Comparison between simple triage and rapid treatment and Taiwan Triage and Acuity Scale for the emergency department triage of victims following an earthquake-related mass casualty incident: a retrospective cohort study

 STARTTTAS
Minor categoryDelay/immediate/deceased categoryLevels III–VLevels I and II
ED discharge, n7015778
Observation/admission/death, n911119
AUC, 95% CI0.709 (0.612–0.793)0.709 (0.612–0.794)
Sensitivity, 95% CI82.35 (72.57–89.77)90.59 (82.29–95.85)
Specificity, 95% CI55.00 (31.53–76.94)45.00 (23.06–68.47)
PPV, 95% CI88.61 (82.59–92.73)87.50 (82.40–91.28)
NPV, 95% CI42.31 (28.56–57.36)52.94 (33.17–71.83)
Accuracy, 95% CI77.14 (67.93–84.77)81.90 (73.19–88.74)
  1. START simple triage and rapid treatment, TTAS Taiwan Triage and Acuity Scale, ED emergency department, AUC area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, CI confidence interval, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value