ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2022
Audit of a computerized version of the Manchester triage system and a SIRS-based system for the detection of sepsis at triage in the emergency department.
Article in International journal of emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of PCT, IL-6, and MR-ProADM for early identification of sepsis in the emergency department.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2026Observational
- Development of an emergency department triage tool to predict admission or discharge for older adults.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Risk factors for readmission of COVID-19 ICU survivors: A three-year follow up.The Indian journal of medical research · 2025Observational
- Be-SNAP: the Belgian Sepsis National Action Plan.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and importanceDifferent triage systems can be used to screen for sepsis and are often incorporated into local electronic health records. Often the design and interface of these digitalizations are not audited, possibly leading to deleterious effects on screening test performance.
objectiveTo audit a digital version of the MTS for detection of sepsis during triage in the ED.
designA single-center retrospective study SETTINGS AND
participantsPatients (n=29766) presenting to an ED of a tertiary-care center who received formal triage were included. OUTCOME MEASURES AND ANALYSIS: Calculated performance measures included sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and AUC for the detection of sepsis. Errors in the application of the specific sepsis discriminator of the MTS were recorded. MAIN
resultsA total of 189 (0.7%) subjects met the Sepsis-3 criteria, with 47 cases meeting the criteria for septic shock. The MTS had a low sensitivity of 47.6% (95% CI 40.3 to 55.0) for allocating sepsis patients to the correct triage category. However, specificity was high at 99.4% (95% CI 99.3 to 99.5).
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.