ArticleActa ortopedica brasileira
VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE MANCHESTER SCALE USED IN THE ORTHOPEDIC EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT.
Article in Acta ortopedica brasileira. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the clinical utility of the Manchester triage scale adapted for orthopedic emergency departments and to evaluate its validity in identifying patients with the need for hospital care and its reliability when reproduced by different professionals.
methodsFive triage flowcharts were developed based on the Manchester scale for the following orthopedic disorders: traumatic injuries, joint pain, vertebral pain, postoperative disorders, and musculoskeletal infections. A series of patients triaged by two orthopedists was analyzed to assess the concordance between the evaluators (reliability) and the validity of the Manchester scale as predictive of severity.
resultsThe reliability analysis included 231 patients, with an inter-observer agreement of 84% (Kappa = 0.77, p <0.001). The validity analysis included 138 patients. The risk category had a strong association with the need for hospital care in patients with trauma (OR = 6.57, p = 0.001) and was not significant for non-traumatic disorders (OR = 2.42; p = 0.208). The overall sensitivity and specificity were 64% and 76%, respectively.
conclusionThe evaluated system presented high reliability. Its validity was adequate, with good sensitivity for identifying patients requiring hospital care among those with traumatic lesions. However, the sensitivity was low for patients with non-traumatic lesions.
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.