ArticleBMJ open2018
Derivation and validation of a chief complaint shortlist for unscheduled acute and emergency care in Uganda.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Use and Structure of Emergency Nurses' Triage Narrative Data: Scoping Review.JMIR nursing · 2023Article
- Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Utilization in Zimbabwe: Retrospective Review of Harare Ambulance System Reports.Annals of global health · 2022Article
- Calibrating a chief complaint list for low resource settings: a methodologic case study.International journal of emergency medicine · 2021Article
- Defining High-risk Emergency Chief Complaints: Data-driven Triage for Low- and Middle-income Countries.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2020Article
- Emergency care status, priorities and standards for the Pacific region: A multiphase survey and consensus process across 17 different Pacific Island Countries and Territories.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDerive and validate a shortlist of chief complaints to describe unscheduled acute and emergency care in Uganda.
settingA single, private, not-for profit hospital in rural, southwestern Uganda.
participantsFrom 2009 to 2015, 26 996 patient visits produced 42 566 total chief complaints for the derivation dataset, and from 2015 to 2017, 10 068 visits produced 20 165 total chief complaints for the validation dataset.
methodsA retrospective review of an emergency centre quality assurance database was performed. Data were abstracted, cleaned and refined using language processing in Stata to produce a longlist of chief complaints, which was collapsed via a consensus process to produce a shortlist and turned into a web-based tool. This tool was used by two local Ugandan emergency care practitioners to categorise complaints from a second longlist produced from a separate validation dataset from the same study site. Their agreement on grouping was analysed using Cohen's kappa to determine inter-rater reliability. The chief complaints describing 80% of patient visits from automated and consensus shortlists were combined to form a candidate chief complaint shortlist.
resultsAutomated data cleaning and refining recognised 95.8% of all complaints and produced a longlist of 555 chief complaints. The consensus process yielded a shortlist of 83 grouped chief complaints. The second validation dataset was reduced in Stata to a longlist of 451 complaints. Using the shortlist tool to categorise complaints produced 71.5% agreement, yielding a kappa of 0.70 showing substantial inter-rater reliability. Only one complaint did not fit into the shortlist and required a free-text amendment. The two shortlists were identical for the most common 14 complaints and combined to form a candidate list of 24 complaints that could characterise over 80% of all emergency centre chief complaints.
conclusionsShortlists of chief complaints can be generated to improve standardisation of data entry, facilitate research efforts and be employed for paper chart usage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.