Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41792649›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2026

Predictive validity of the identification of seniors at risk (ISAR) screening tool in a Turkish emergency department.

Şakir Hakan Aksu, Fikret Bildik, Merve Yazla, Aslıhan Küçük Albayrak, Hacer Dogan Varan, Mehmet Ali Aslaner, İsa Kılıçaslan, Ayfer Keleş

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Şakir Hakan AksuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, İzmir City Hospital, Sevket Ince Mah., 2148/11 Sk., Bayraklı, İzmir, 35540, Türkiye. aksu.sakirhakan@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2120-7863
Fikret BildikDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2464-0232
Merve YazlaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ankara Etlik City Hospital, Ankara, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5547-3353
Aslıhan Küçük AlbayrakDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ankara Gülhane Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4218-4843
Hacer Dogan VaranDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Geriatrics, Gazi University, Ankara, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5238-1162
Mehmet Ali AslanerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1037-6100
İsa KılıçaslanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0330-2595
Ayfer KeleşDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4429-3100

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmergency departments are increasingly managing older patients who frequently present with multimorbidity and functional decline, placing them at increased risk for short and long-term adverse outcomes. Early identification of patients at increased risk is essential for appropriate risk stratification and care planning. The Identification of Seniors at Risk (ISAR) is a brief screening tool developed to identify older emergency department patients at risk of adverse outcomes; however, its predictive performance has not been formally evaluated in the Turkish emergency department setting. This study aimed to evaluate the predictive validity and reliability of the Turkish version of ISAR among older ED patients.

methodsThis prospective cohort study included patients aged ≥ 65 years presenting to a tertiary level emergency department in Türkiye. The ISAR tool was translated using a forward-backward translation process and administered at index ED presentation. Adverse outcomes were assessed at 30 and 180 days and included death, unplanned hospitalization, functional decline, or transfer to a nursing home. Predictive performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, and the optimal ISAR cut-off was determined based on ROC analyses.

resultsAmong 356 included patients (median age:73 years), 54.5% were classified as high-risk (ISAR ≥ 2). High-risk status was significantly associated with advancing age, higher comorbidity burden, greater triage severity, longer ED stays and higher rates of hospital admission. At 30 days, ISAR demonstrated good predictive performance for the composite adverse outcome, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.790 (95% CI 0.741–0.838). Using a cut-off of ISAR ≥ 2, sensitivity was 89.3% and specificity was 61.7%. At 180 days, predictive performance remained robust, with an AUC of 0.818 (95% CI 0.772–0.864), sensitivity of 80.6%, and specificity of 71.1%. Inclusion of emergency department readmissions in the composite outcome resulted in lower sensitivity and higher specificity at both time points.

conclusionsThe Turkish version of the ISAR screening tool demonstrated acceptable predictive validity for identifying older emergency department patients at risk of adverse outcomes, with consistently high sensitivity and moderate specificity. ISAR may be useful as a rapid risk stratification tool in the emergency department but should not be used as a standalone instrument for clinical decision-making.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalGeriatric AssessmentMass ScreeningAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesEmergency Room VisitsFemaleHumansMalePredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentTurkeyAdverse outcomesElderly patientsEmergency departmentGeriatric assessmentISARTurkish validation

Identifiers

PMID41792649
PMCPMC13077872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.