Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36857018›Full record

ArticleCJEM2023

Agreement and prognostic accuracy of three ED vulnerability screeners: findings from a prospective multi-site cohort study.

Fabrice I Mowbray, George Heckman, John P Hirdes, Andrew P Costa, Olivier Beauchet, Patrick Archambault, Debra Eagles, Han Ting Wang, Jeffrey J Perry, Samir K Sinha and 2 more

Full text readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in CJEM, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Fabrice I MowbrayDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8844-5850
George HeckmanSchool of Public Health Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3847-3287
John P HirdesSchool of Public Health Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9619-6543
Andrew P CostaDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9212-5641
Olivier BeauchetDepartment of Medicine and Research Center of the Geriatric University Institute of Montreal, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0957-9736
Patrick ArchambaultDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5090-6439
Debra EaglesDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7454-2721
Han Ting WangDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Universite de Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7951-5581
Jeffrey J PerryDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Samir K SinhaDivision of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Sinai Health and University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Micaela JantziSchool of Public Health Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Paul HebertDivision of Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, Bruyere Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. paul.hebert.med@ssss.gouv.qc.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-0440-8586

Funding

Canadian Frailty Network SIG2014F-31
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the agreement between three emergency department (ED) vulnerability screeners, including the InterRAI ED Screener, ER

methodsWe conducted a nested sub-group study using data from a prospective multi-site cohort study evaluating frailty in older ED patients presenting to four Quebec hospitals. Research nurses assessed patients consecutively with the three screeners. We employed Cohen's Kappa to determine agreement, with high-risk cut-offs of three and four for the PRISMA-7, six for the ER

resultsWe evaluated 1855 older ED patients across the four hospital sites. The mean age of our sample was 84 years. Agreement between the interRAI ED Screener and the ER

conclusionED vulnerability scores from the three instruments had a fair agreement and were associated with important patient outcomes. The interRAI ED Screener best identifies older ED patients at greatest risk, while the PRISMA-7 and ER

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalPatient DischargeAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesGeriatric AssessmentHumansPrognosisProspective StudiesEmergency departmentFrailtyGeriatricsScreeningVulnerability

Identifiers

PMID36857018
PMCPMC10014815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read43
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.