ArticleArchives of disease in childhood2021
Inter-rater reliability of paediatric emergency assessment: physiological and clinical features.
Article in Archives of disease in childhood, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characteristics of a revised quick sequential organ failure assessment score (RqSOFA) to predict in-hospital mortality of patients visiting the emergency department via ambulance: an observational cohort study.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Observational
- The Value of the First Clinical Impression as Assessed by 18 Observations in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- The Family Level Assessment of Screen Use-Mobile Approach: Development of an Approach to Measure Children's Mobile Device Use.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe Paediatric Admission Guidance in the Emergency Department (PAGE) score is an assessment tool currently in development that helps predict hospital admission using components including patient characteristics, vital signs (heart rate, temperature, respiratory rate and oxygen saturation) and clinical features (eg, breathing, behaviour and nurse judgement). It aims to assist in safe admission and discharge decision making in environments such as emergency departments and urgent care centres. Determining the inter-rater reliability of scoring tools such as PAGE can be difficult. The aim of this study was to determine the inter-rater reliability of seven clinical components of the PAGE Score.
designInter-rater reliability was measured by each patient having their clinical components recorded by two separate raters in succession. The first rater was the assessing nurse, and the second rater was a research nurse.
settingTwo emergency departments and one urgent care centre in the North West of England. Measurements were recorded over 1 week; data were collected for half a day at each of the three sites. PATIENTS: A convenience sample of 90 paediatric attendees (aged 0-16 years), 30 from each of the three sites.
main outcome measuresTwo independent measures for each child were compared using kappa or prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK). Bland-Altman plots were also constructed for continuous measurements.
resultsInter-rater reliability ranged from moderate (0.62 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.74) weighted kappa) to very good (0.98 (95% CI 95 to 0.99) weighted kappa) for all measurements except 'nurse judgement' for which agreement was fair (0.30, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.50 PABAK). Complete information from both raters on all the clinical components of the PAGE score were available for 73 children (81%). These total scores showed good' inter-rater reliability (0.64 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.74) weighted kappa).
conclusionsOur findings suggest different nurses would demonstrate good inter-rater reliability when collecting acute assessments needed for the PAGE score, reinforcing the applicability of the tool. The importance of determining reliability in scoring systems is highlighted and a suitable methodology was presented.
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.