ArticlePregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.)2026
Validation of the Gothenburg obstetric triage system.
Article in Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.), 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
Introduction: Obstetric emergency triage is a relatively new form of emergency triage and not yet fully implemented within obstetric emergency care. In addition to assessing both the pregnant patient and fetus, obstetric triage systems require adaptation to the physiological changes of pregnancy. Without adapted triage systems, obstetric patients are known to receive unequal care compared to non-obstetric emergency patients, resulting in avoidable adverse outcomes. This study aims to validate the Gothenburg obstetric triage system, a five-level obstetric emergency system based on symptom presentations and vital sign parameters. Materials and methods: Consecutive medical charts from the obstetric emergency department at Sahlgrenska University Hospital between January 1-17 and June 1-17, 2021 were reviewed. Triage levels were dichotomized into urgent (red/orange) and nonurgent (yellow/green/blue) and assessed in relation to 31 previously established acuity outcome measures reflecting acuity in the moment of triage. Sensitivity and specificity as well as over- and undertriage were assessed for Gothenburg obstetric triage system (GOTS) in general and individual chief complaints. For undertriaged patients, deepened chart reviews were performed. Results: Of 1280 patient visits, the appropriate triage level had been assigned in 96% of the patient visits; 2.3% (29/1280) were undertriaged. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.62 (confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.73) and 0.98 (CI, 0.97-0.99), respectively. Subjective symptom descriptions such as pain and dyspnea were prone to under- and overtriage. Conclusion: We suggest a two-phase validation process with standardized acuity outcome measures and deepened chart reviews to assess validity of obstetric triage systems in a given obstetric context. We found that GOTS is a valid triage system in the studied context but also identified areas of further improvement.
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.