ArticleJournal of patient safety2026
Assessing Inter-Rater Agreement Across Five Teams Applying the Global Trigger Tool to Review 200 Inpatient Medical Records.
Article in Journal of patient safety, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveA national quality indicator for hospital adverse events (AEs) could be based on Global Trigger Tool (GTT) data, with its validity depending on consistent reproducibility within the same GTT team and across independent GTT teams. A few studies have examined the inter-rater agreement between 2 independent teams' ratings of the same medical records, but not across a larger number of teams, which was the objective of this study.
methodsFive trained and experienced GTT teams across Norway reviewed the same 200 randomly sampled records. The inter-rater agreement across the teams on the presence or absence of at least one AE was assessed, together with agreement on the number of AEs and AE severity level. Differences in the teams' ratings were evaluated using a generalized linear mixed model, with adjustment for relevant covariates, and tested with a nonparametric method.
resultsThe 5 teams agreed on AE occurrence in 57.5% of the records, giving moderate agreement (Fleiss' κ: 0.48; Gwet's AC1: 0.65). Records with agreement on AE occurrence were clinically more complex, with longer LOS, more diagnoses and procedures, and higher readmission rates than those with disagreement. Teams 4 and 5 identified the highest number of records with AEs, and the differences in the 5 teams' ratings were significant.
conclusionsWe point to a need for strengthening reviewer calibration and training to obtain higher agreement across independent GTT teams. This is a prerequisite for applying GTT data in a national quality indicator for AEs in hospitals.
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.