ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2025
Clinical validity of the Pediatric Assessment Triangle in a pediatric emergency department.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2025. 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.
- Clinical accuracy and applications of the Pediatric Assessment Triangle in emergency care: a narrative review.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Performance and safety of a fine-tuned small language model for pediatric emergency triage: A benchmark study.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical validity of the Pediatric Assessment Triangle (PAT) in a pediatric emergency department (PED). Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 799 children who visited our PED and collected data on age, sex, disease severity, expense, and disposition. We analyzed the correlations between PAT and disease, age, waiting time, disposition, and cost. Results: In total, 429 boys (53.7%) and 370 girls (46.3%), with an average age of 4.97 years, were enrolled. The number of children in levels 2, 3, and 4 was 5 (0.6%), 158 (19.8%), and 636 (79.6%), respectively. Respiratory system diseases comprised 78.7% of all disease cases. The top three highest proportions of critical cases were endocrine system diseases (100%), toxic exposure (50%), and circulatory system diseases (40%). Children aged 3-8 years accounted for 45.3% of the cases. The incidence of critical cases was most prevalent within the neonatal population (21.4%), followed by children aged 8-15 years (2.1%) and 3-8 years (0.6%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the PAT in predicting hospitalization was 0.966. The mean waiting time for level-2 children was 3.80 min. Conclusions: As a tool used for PED triage, the PAT can specifically identify critical cases, particularly in recognition of pediatric respiratory emergencies and neonatal emergencies, and demonstrates significant superiority. Future multicenter studies should be conducted in pediatric emergency medical centers to investigate the effectiveness of PAT in PED triage further.
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.