ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2025
Urgent surgical patient classification: Development and validation of a novel instrument using the Delphi approach.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe lack of a triage system for urgent surgical patients leads to non-standardized decision-making. Developing an instrument to objectively identify the complexity of care required for each case is challenging. The aim of this report is to develop and validate an urgent surgical patient classification instrument using the Delphi technique. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study was conducted in several stages: (1) definition of the construct; (2) item elaboration; (3) expert analysis; (4) item selection; (5) pretest. In the first study, scale items were designed and content validity was confirmed. In the second study, the factorial structure was analyzed. In the third study, alternative measurement models were tested. In the fourth study, criterion validity was analyzed.
resultsExperts validated 14 items (31.81%) from Domain 1 with 75% agreement and specific items from Domain 2 with 100% agreement. Factor analysis indicated a two-factor solution explaining 58.4% of the variance. The bifactor model presented the best fit (χ2/df = 1.51; CFI = 0.95; TLI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.051; SRMR = 0.043). Factors showed excellent internal consistency (α > 0.88; CR > 0.90; ω > 0.92).
conclusionThis pioneering study developed and validated the content of the first specific instrument for classifying urgent surgical patients regarding their priority for care. The instrument was deemed valid in terms of content, based on expert consensus. Further studies are recommended to evaluate its practical application and perform additional psychometric measures. This instrument has the potential to enhance the organization of emergency services and operating theaters, promoting patient safety and efficient resource management in healthcare institutions. Its implementation should align with current health guidelines and policies to optimize the triage and prioritization process for urgent surgical patients.
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.