Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33485380›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2021

A validity study of the rapid emergency Triage and treatment system for children.

Siv Steinsmo Ødegård, Thuy Tran, Lars E Næss-Pleym, Kari Risnes, Henrik Døllner

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Outcomes of Chengdu Pediatric Emergency Triage Criteria: A Retrospective Study of 198,628 Pediatric Patient Records.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Article
  6. A Review of the Roles and Implementation of Pediatric Emergency Triage Systems in China and Other Countries.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023
    Review
  7. A longitudinal, retrospective registry-based validation study of RETTS©, the Swedish adult ED context version.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Siv Steinsmo ØdegårdDepartment of Pediatrics, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. siv.steinsmo@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9341-6336
Thuy TranDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Medicine (IKOM), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Lars E Næss-PleymDepartment of Emergency Medicine and Pre-hospital Services, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Kari RisnesDepartment of Pediatrics, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Henrik DøllnerDepartment of Pediatrics, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Scandinavian Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System-pediatric (RETTS-p) is a reliable triage system that includes both assessment of vital parameters and a systematic approach to history and symptoms. In Scandinavia, the system is used in most pediatric emergency departments (PED). We aimed to study the validity of RETTS-p.

methodsWe conducted a study based on triage priority ratings from all children assessed in 2013 and 2014 to the PED at St. Olavs University Hospital Trondheim, Norway. Patients were assigned one of four priority ratings, based on the RETTS-p systematic evaluation of individual disease manifestations and vital parameter measurements. In the absence of a gold-standard for true disease severity, we assessed whether priority ratings were associated with 3 proxy variables: 1) hospitalization to the wards (yes vs. no), 2) length of hospital stay (≤ mean vs. > mean, and 3) referral to pediatric intensive care (yes vs. no). We further compared priority ratings with selected diagnoses and procedure codes at discharge.

resultsSix thousand three hundred sixty-eight children were included in the study. All analyses were performed in the entire population and separately in pediatric sub-disciplines, medicine (n = 4741) and surgery (general and neurosurgery) (n = 1306). In the entire population and the sub-disciplines, a high priority rate was significantly associated with hospitalization to wards, a longer hospital stay and referral to the pediatric intensive care unit compared to patients with low priority. We observed a dose-response relationship between increased triage code level and indicators of more severe disease (p-trend < 0.001). For the same three proxy variables, the sensitivity was 54, 61 and 83%, respectively, and the specificity 66, 62 and 57%, respectively. Subgroup analyzes within the most common complaints, demonstrated that more severe conditions were higher prioritized than less severe conditions for both medical and surgical patients. Overall, children with surgical diagnoses attained lower priority ratings than children with medical diagnoses.

conclusionsRETTS-p priority ratings varies among a broad spectrum of pediatric conditions and mirror medical urgency in both medical and surgical disciplines. RETTS-p is a valid triage system for children as used in a university hospital setting.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHospitalizationHumansInfantInfant, NewbornIntensive Care Units, PediatricLength of StayMaleNorwayPediatric Emergency MedicineSensitivity and SpecificityTriagePediatric emergency careRETTS-pTriageValidity

Identifiers

PMID33485380
PMCPMC7825176

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.