ArticleTurkish journal of emergency medicine2019
Comparison between Emergency Severity Index plus peak flow meter and Emergency Severity Index in the dyspneic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A randomized clinical trial.
Article in Turkish journal of emergency medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive values of news and Mts in patients presenting with dyspnea: A comparative cohort study.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2026Article
- The Diagnostic Evaluation of the SINEH Cardiopulmonary Triage Scale and the Emergency Severity Index in the Emergency Department: A Comparative Study.Emergency medicine international · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIt is unclear whether the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) can identify high-risk patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). This study aims to compare the mistriage rates of the ESI plus the Peak Expiratory Flowmeter (PEF) approach and ESI approach among dyspneic patients with COPD.
methodsThis study was a randomized clinical trial conducted between July and October 2018. We randomly assigned COPD patients with dyspnea to the ESI + PEF or ESI groups. Triage levels, disposition rates, number of resources used, and time to first physician contact were compared in patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), the Pulmonary Care Unit (PU), or discharged from the ED. Reliability of the ESI was evaluated by using the interobserver agreement (Kappa).
resultsSeventy COPD patients were equally assigned to the ESI + PEF and ESI groups. The under-triage rates were 11.42% and 0%, the over-triage rates were 31.42% and 2.85% in the ESI and ESI + PEF groups, respectively. The triage levels of the patients admitted to the ICU (2 vs. 3), the PU (2 vs. 4), or discharged from the ED (3 vs. 2) were significantly different between the ESI + PEF and ESI groups.
conclusionsAddition of PEF to the ESI provides a more accurate method for triaging COPD patients compared to ESI alone. We recommend using PEF for the triage of COPD patients in the ED.
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.