ArticleScientific reports2025
Assessment of the occurrence of adverse events through the global trigger tool in a university hospital in Italy.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Development and evaluation of a German Paediatric Trigger Tool (PAED-TT-GER) for detecting adverse events in hospitalized children.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Adverse events identified by a trigger tool as indicators of patient safety and safety management in a medical department.Frontiers in public health · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The reporting of adverse events (AEs) through incident reporting (IR) is considered a valuable tool to ensure their analysis. In addition, the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) methodologies allow a review of clinical records through triggers. The purposes of this study were to assess the occurrence, type and severity of AEs detected by the GTT, comparing the results with the IR system. A retrospective study was conducted between September and November 2023 in Italy on 500 clinical records of patients admitted in 2022 and 2023. A total of 59 AEs were detected in 45 patients (11.8%), and all were associated with at least one trigger. The most frequent AEs were healthcare-associated infections (HAI) (32.2%), medication (27.1%), procedures (23.7%), and healthcare-related AEs (17%). Only 3.4% of the AEs revealed by GTT were also reported in the IR system. Male sex, higher Charlson index, and length of stay were significantly associated with higher results of AE. Significant predictors of in-hospital death were permanence in intensive care units and exposure to central venous catheter. The GTT demonstrated to be feasible and to provide a broader evaluation of the pattern of AEs in the hospital. The findings suggest the need to rely on multiple data sources and methodologies to identify AEs.
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.