Reliability of triage systems for paediatric emergency care: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To present a systematic review on the reliability of triage systems for paediatric emergency care. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scientific Electronic Library Online, Nursing Database Index and Spanish Health Sciences Bibliographic Index for articles in English, French, Portuguese or Spanish was conducted to identify reliability studies of five-level triage systems for patients aged 0-18 years published up to April 2018. Two reviewers performed study selection, data extraction and quality assessment as recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. RESULTS: Twenty studies on nine triage systems were selected: the National Triage System (n=1); the Australasian Triage Scale (n=3); the paediatric Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (PedCTAS) (n=5); the Manchester Triage System (MTS) (n=1); the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) (n=5); an adaptation of the South African Triage Scale for the Princess Marina Hospital in Botswana (n=1); the Soterion Rapid Triage System (n=1); the Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System-paediatric version (n=2); the Paediatric Risk Classification Protocol (n=1). Ten studies were performed with actual patients, while the others used hypothetical scenarios. The studies were rated low (n=14) or moderate (n=6) quality. Kappa was the most used statistic, although many studies did not specify the weighting. PedCTAS, MTS and ESI V.4 exhibited substantial to almost perfect agreement in moderate quality studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence on the reliability of the PedCTAS, MTS and ESI V.4, but most studies are limited to the countries where they were developed. Efforts are needed to improve the quality of the studies, and cross-cultural adaptation of those tools is recommended in countries with different professional qualification and sociocultural contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.192 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".