Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2025
Inter-rater agreement of respiratory distress observation scale measurement between physicians and nurses in the emergency department.
Observational study in BMC emergency medicine, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDyspnea is an individual’s sensation of discomfort during breathing. For patients with dyspnea who are unable to communicate, the Respiratory Distress Observation Scale (RDOS) was used to rate the severity based on eight parameters observed. In the emergency department, emergency nurses triage the patients with dyspnea and monitor their symptom severities, while emergency physicians evaluate the patients to determine treatment decisions. We aim to study the inter-rater agreement of RDOS measurement between emergency physicians and nurses.
methodBetween March 2024 and January 2025, an observational cross-sectional study was conducted in resuscitation rooms of two university academic hospitals. The participants were emergency physicians and nurses who were the first responders to adult patients presenting to the resuscitation room with dyspnea. The RDOS assessment was done individually by the data record forms within 20 min after arriving in the resuscitation rooms. The primary outcome was inter-rater agreement on RDOS measurement between emergency physicians and nurses.
resultBy 176 patients with dyspnea (N = 176), 44 emergency physicians and 55 nurses were included with no difference in either age or clinical experiences. The overall physicians and nurses reported a fair agreement of RDOS severity (58%) with a Kappa statistic of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.47–0.61, SE 0.075, p < 0.001), with 57% agreement in patients with intact communication and 61% agreement in those with impaired communication. The ratings were internally consistent and homogeneous among each profession. (the overall IIC 0.737 and 0.767, respectively). The inter-rater reliability was poor to moderate across both professions when scoring seven of eight RDOS parameters.
conclusionsEmergency physicians and nurses have fair inter-rater agreement on RDOS measurement. Seven of the eight RDOS parameters revealed poor to moderate inter-rater reliability in both professions. Therefore, implementing RDOS in the ED requires customized training and calibrating the RDOS assessment.
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.