Some methods have been usually used in disaster triage situations, include simple triage and rapid treatment (START), Care-Flight triage, and so on. Seldom disaster experiences report triage accuracy in a earthquake. The study objective was to determine the accuracy of 4 disaster triage methods when predicting clinically important outcomes in Lu-shan earthquake trauma victims. Trauma victims records in Lu-shan earthquake Trauma Database were assigned triage levels, using each of 4 disaster triage methods: START, Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), Care-Flight triage and Sacco Score. Methods for approximating triage systems were vetted by subject matter experts. First standard was ISS score with area under the receiver operator curve (ROC), an ISS score equal to or exceeding 15 indicates a critical patient, and should be assigned red flag status. Secondary standards included being admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), and a surgical operation was done in 24 hours. In this study, 257 trauma victims records in Lushan Earthquake Trauma Database were included. The REMS predicted critical patients most accurately, with area under the ROC of 0.873 (95% confidence interval 0.86 to 0.88). Sacco Score was more accurate than START and Care-Flight, with area under the receiver operator curve of 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.82 to 0.88). Among 4 disaster triage methods compared against actual outcomes in trauma registry patients, the REMS and Sacco Score was more accurately than other three triage algorithms.