ArticlePloS one2025
Development and validation of trigger tools in primary care: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
In primary care, trigger tools have been utilized to evaluate and identify patient safety events. The use of trigger tools could help clinicians and patients detect adverse events in a patient's medical record. Due to a lack of research on the process development of trigger tools in primary care, the purpose of this scoping review is to investigate the trigger development and validation process in primary care settings. A scoping review methodology was used to map the published literature using the Joanna Briggs Methodology of performing scoping review. We considered only studies published in English in the last five years and included both qualitative and quantitative study designs. The final review included five articles. The primary care and combined primary-secondary care studies are included to gain more knowledge in the process development and validation of trigger tools. The trigger tool development process begins with clearly defining the triggers, which are then programmed into a combined computerized algorithm. The validation process was then carried out in two steps by both physician and non-physician experts for content and concurrent validity. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of the final algorithm were critical in determining the validity of each trigger. This study provided a comprehensive guide to developing trigger tools, emphasizing the importance of precisely defining triggers through a thorough literature review and dual validation process. There were similarities in the development and validation of trigger tools across primary care and hospital settings, allowing primary care to learn from hospital settings.
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.