ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Predictive validity of the identification of seniors at risk (ISAR) screening tool in a Turkish emergency department.
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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.