ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2021
Reliability of Dutch Obstetric Telephone Triage.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2021. 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.
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
backgroundSafety and efficiency of emergency care can be optimized with a triage system which uses urgency to prioritize care. The Dutch Obstetric Telephone Triage System (DOTTS) was developed to provide a basis for assessing urgency of unplanned obstetric care requests by telephone. Reliability and validity are important components in evaluating such (obstetric) triage systems.
objectiveTo determine the reliability of Dutch Obstetric Telephone Triage, by calculating the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability.
methodsTo evaluate the urgency levels of DOTTS by testing inter-rater and intra-rater reliability, 90 vignettes of possible requests were developed. Nineteen participants, from hospitals where DOTTS had been implemented, rated in two rounds a set of ten vignettes. The five urgency levels and five presenting symptoms had an equal spread and had to be entered in accordance with DOTTS per vignette. Urgency levels were dichotomized into high urgency and intermediate urgency. Inter-rater reliability was rated as degree of agreement between two different participants with the same vignette. Intra-rater reliability was rated as agreement by the same participants at different moments in time. The degree of inter-rater and intra-rater reliability was tested using weighted Cohen's Kappa and ICC.
resultsThe agreement of urgency level between participants in accordance with predefined urgency level per vignette was 90.5% (95% CI 87.5-93.6) [335 of 370]. Agreement of urgency level between participants was 88.5% (95% CI 84.9-93.0) [177 of 200] and 84.9% (95% CI 78.3-91.4) after re-rating [101 of 119]. Inter-rater reliability of DOTTS expressed as Cohen's Kappa was 0.77 and as ICC 0.87; intra-rater reliability of DOTTS expressed as Cohen's Kappa was 0.70 and as ICC 0.82.
conclusionInter-rater and intra-rater reliability of DOTTS showed substantial correlation, and is comparable to other studies. Therefore, DOTTS is considered reliable.
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.