ArticleBMJ open2022
Emergency nurses' triage narrative data, their uses and structure: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. 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.
- Developing and validating an artificial intelligence-based electronic triage model for predicting clinical outcomes among cardiac-suspected patients in the emergency department.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- The Use and Structure of Emergency Nurses' Triage Narrative Data: Scoping Review.JMIR nursing · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe first clinical interaction most patients have in the emergency department occurs during triage. An unstructured narrative is generated during triage and is the first source of in-hospital documentation. These narratives capture the patient's reported reason for the visit and the initial assessment and offer significantly more nuanced descriptions of the patient's complaints than fixed field data. Previous research demonstrated these data are useful for predicting important clinical outcomes. Previous reviews examined these narratives in combination or isolation with other free-text sources, but used restricted searches and are becoming outdated. Furthermore, there are no reviews focused solely on nurses' (the primary collectors of these data) narratives. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using the Arksey and O'Malley scoping review framework and PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines, we will perform structured searches of CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE, ProQuest Central, Ovid Embase and Cochrane Library (via Wiley). Additionally, we will forward citation searches of all included studies. No geographical or study design exclusion criteria will be used. Studies examining disaster triage, published before 1990, and non-English language literature will be excluded. Data will be managed using online management tools; extracted data will be independently confirmed by a separate reviewer using prepiloted extraction forms. Cohen's kappa will be used to examine inter-rater agreement on pilot and final screening. Quantitative data will be expressed using measures of range and central tendency, counts, proportions and percentages, as appropriate. Qualitative data will be narrative summaries of the authors' primary findings. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: No patients involved. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required. Findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed conferences and journals. Results will be disseminated using individual and institutional social media platforms.
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.