ArticleAfrican journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence2026
Assessment of Sydney Triage to Admission Risk Tool (START) on Egyptian Emergency Department performance.
Article in African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence, 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
Background: Efficient triage enhances emergency department (ED) operations by minimizing overcrowding, supporting prompt clinical decision-making, and potentially lowering hospital mortality rates. This study assesses the impact of the Sydney Triage to Admission Risk Tool (START) on the performance of the Emergency Department at Menoufia University Hospital, Egpyt. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted on 399 patients who presented to the ED of Menoufia University Hospitals between July and December 2024. Results: There was a significant reduction in the mean ED length of stay in the START group compared to the standard group (204.15 ± 123.48 vs. 234.67 ± 141.62 minutes, p < 0.02). A higher proportion of patients in the START group had ED stays of less than four hours (84.0% vs. 73.9%, p < 0.01). Additionally, there was a statistically significant decrease in the mortality rate in the START group compared to the standard group (5% vs. 10.6%, p < 0.02). The START score demonstrated excellent predictive performance, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90-0.95), and predicted patient admission with a sensitivity of 91.4% and a specificity of 76.6%. Conclusion: The START tool significantly improved ED performance by reducing the mean length of stay and increasing the proportion of patients discharged within four hours.
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.