ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
An Evaluation of the Performance of Five Burnout Screening Tools: A Multicentre Study in Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, and Ancillary Staff.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of the Single-Item Burnout Question: Its Reliability Depends on Your Purpose.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Benefits and harms of copyright restrictions and conditions on burnout and other psychometric assessment scales.PloS one · 2026Article
- Exploring Stress, Fatigue, Burnout, and Resilience Among Healthcare Personnel in Southern and South-Eastern Asia: A Scoping Review.Public health reviews · 2025Review
- Depicting occupational trauma concepts impacting nurse well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2024Review
- Identification of Surgeon Burnout via a Single-Item Measure.Occupational medicine (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of the Single-item Measure of Burnout (Japanese version) for identifying medical resident burnout.Journal of general and family medicine · 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
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Burnout is an important occupational hazard and early detection is paramount in preventing negative sequelae in physicians, patients, and healthcare systems. Several screening tools have been developed to replace lengthy diagnostic tools for large-scale screening, however, comprehensive head-to-head evaluation for performance and accuracy are lacking. The primary objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of five burnout screening tools, including a novel rapid burnout screening tool (RBST). This was a cross-sectional study involving 493 hospital staff (anaesthesiology and intensive care doctors, nurses, and ancillary staff) at the COVID-19 frontline across four hospitals in Singapore between December 2020 and April 2021. The Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS) was used as the reference standard. Five burnout screening tools, the single-item MBI measure of burnout (SI-MBI), dual-item MBI (DI-MBI), abbreviated MBI (aMBI), Single Item Burnout Question (SIBOQ), and the RBST, were administered via a 36-item online survey. Tools were administered simultaneously and responses were anonymised. Burnout prevalence was 19.9%. The RBST and the SI-MBI had the two highest accuracies (87.8% and 81.9% respectively) and AUROC scores (0.86, 95% CI: 0.83-0.89 and 0.86, 95% CI: 0.82-0.89 respectively). However, the accuracy of the RBST was significantly higher than the SI-MBI (
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.