Observational studyPloS one2026
A decade of triage with the Manchester Triage System-The MTS big data study.
Observational study in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver the past 25 years, numerous studies have evaluated triage system performance, but longitudinal data are limited. This study is the first to assess the Manchester Triage System (MTS) over a decade to determine the accuracy of initial patient assessments and system stability under external influences such as staff turnover, health policy changes, demographic shifts, and the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsWe conducted a large-scale, monocentric, retrospective observational study at a tertiary care hospital.
resultsBetween 2014 and 2023 a total of 355,135 emergency patients were included. Average age increased from 48.1 to 52.1 years. The distribution of the five MTS urgency levels remained stable. Prediction of hospital admission (AUC 0.719-0.756) and ICU admission (AUC 0.831-0.862) was consistent throughout the period. Twelve-hour survival probabilities were above 0.99 for "blue" to "orange" patients and above 0.89 for "red" patients. Short-term mortality prediction (AUC) ranged from 0.845 to 0.894. Thirty-day survival remained >0.8 for "blue" to "orange" stages, while the "red" stage declined from 0.63 (2014) to 0.44 (2023). The AUC for 30-day mortality increased from 0.672 to 0.750 over the decade.
conclusionConstruct validity assessment demonstrates that the MTS reliably assigns appropriate urgency levels to incoming emergency patients. Longitudinal evaluation shows that its accuracy remained stable over ten years despite high staff turnover, health policy and demographic changes, and the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings confirm the robustness and reliability of the MTS in a high-volume tertiary care setting and support its continued use for emergency patient prioritization.
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.