Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Feb 13;5(1):6.
doi: 10.1186/s40779-018-0152-y.

Expert consensus on the evaluation and diagnosis of combat injuries of the Chinese People's Liberation Army

Zhao-Wen Zong  1 , Lian-Yang Zhang  2 , Hao Qin  2 , Si-Xu Chen  2 , Lin Zhang  3 , Lei Yang  2 , Xiao-Xue Li  4 , Quan-Wei Bao  2 , Dao-Cheng Liu  2 , Si-Hao He  2 , Yue Shen  2 , Rong Zhang  5 , Yu-Feng Zhao  2 , Xiao-Zheng Zhong  2 ; representing the PLA Professional Committee and Youth Committee on Disaster Medicine
Collaborators, Affiliations

Expert consensus on the evaluation and diagnosis of combat injuries of the Chinese People's Liberation Army

Zhao-Wen Zong et al. Mil Med Res. .

Abstract

The accurate assessment and diagnosis of combat injuries are the basis for triage and treatment of combat casualties. A consensus on the assessment and diagnosis of combat injuries was made and discussed at the second annual meeting of the Professional Committee on Disaster Medicine of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA). In this consensus agreement, the massive hemorrhage, airway, respiration, circulation and hypothermia (MARCH) algorithm, which is a simple triage and rapid treatment and field triage score, was recommended to assess combat casualties during the first-aid stage, whereas the abbreviated scoring method for combat casualty and the MARCH algorithm were recommended to assess combat casualties in level II facilities. In level III facilities, combined measures, including a history inquiry, thorough physical examination, laboratory examination, X-ray, and ultrasound examination, were recommended for the diagnosis of combat casualties. In addition, corresponding methods were recommended for the recognition of casualties needing massive transfusions, assessment of firearm wounds, evaluation of mangled extremities, and assessment of injury severity in this consensus.

Keywords: Assessment; Combat injuries; Diagnosis; Expert consensus.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

    1. Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou P, Greenhalgh T, Heneghan C, Liberati A, et al. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence. OCEBM Levels Evid Work Gr. 2011. Available at: http://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CEBM-Levels-of-Evidence-2..., Accessed 22 Oct. 2017.
    1. Ketola E, Kaila M, Honkanen M. Guidelines in context of evidence. Qual Saf Health Care. 2007;16(4):308–312. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2006.019752. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Camanho GL. Level of evidence. Rev Bras Ortop. 2015;44(6):IFC1–IFC2. doi: 10.1590/S0102-36162009000600001. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490–1490. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Falzone E, Pasquier P, Hoffmann C, Barbier O, Boutonnet M, Salvadori A, et al. Triage in military settings. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2017;36(1):43–51. doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2016.05.004. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types