Observational studyYonsei medical journal2021
Modification and Validation of a Complaint-Oriented Emergency Department Triage System: A Multicenter Observational Study.
Observational study in Yonsei medical journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transfer versus direct-visit patients in medically underserved emergency departments: a retrospective cohort study.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
- A new Bayesian method for the estimation of emergency nurses' thresholds and agreement in the context of telephone triage.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Effect of storage duration on outcome of patients receiving red blood cell in emergency department.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Predictability of the emergency department triage system during the COVID-19 pandemic.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Development of an artificial intelligence bacteremia prediction model and evaluation of its impact on physician predictions focusing on uncertainty.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Patient and hospital characteristics predict prolonged emergency department length of stay and in-hospital mortality: a nationwide analysis in Korea.BMC emergency 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective of this study was to modify and validate an emergency department (ED) triage system with improved prediction performance on hospital outcomes by modifying the Korean Triage and Acuity Scale (KTAS). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe performed a retrospective observational study at three academic universities in South Korea. The KTAS code, determined by the chief complaint and the selected modifier of a patient, was used to derive the Modified KTAS (MKTAS). We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) and the test characteristics to evaluate the performance of MKTAS to predict hospital mortality, critical outcome, and admission.
resultsA total of 272402 and 128831 ED visits were used for the derivation and validation of MKTAS, respectively. Compared to KTAS, MKTAS had significantly higher AUC values for the prediction of hospital mortality [MKTAS 0.826 (0.818-0.835) vs. KTAS 0.794 (0.784-0.803)], critical outcome [MKTAS 0.836 (0.830-0.841) vs. 0.798 (0.792-0.804)], and admission [MKTAS 0.725 (0.723-0.728) vs. KTAS 0.685 (0.682-0.688)]. The sensitivity for predicting hospital mortality and critical outcome, as well as the specificity for predicting admission, were significantly improved.
conclusionMKTAS was derived by modifying the KTAS, and then validated. Compared with KTAS, MKTAS showed better discriminating ability to predict hospital outcomes. Continuous efforts to evaluate and modify widely used triage systems are required to improve their performance.
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.