↓ Skip to main content

Emergency Department Triage Scales and Their Components: A Systematic Review of the Scientific Evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
203 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
359 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Emergency Department Triage Scales and Their Components: A Systematic Review of the Scientific Evidence
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, January 2011
DOI 10.1186/1757-7241-19-42
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nasim Farrohknia, Maaret Castrén, Anna Ehrenberg, Lars Lind, Sven Oredsson, Håkan Jonsson, Kjell Asplund, Katarina E Göransson

Abstract

Emergency department (ED) triage is used to identify patients' level of urgency and treat them based on their triage level. The global advancement of triage scales in the past two decades has generated considerable research on the validity and reliability of these scales. This systematic review aims to investigate the scientific evidence for published ED triage scales. The following questions are addressed: 1. Does assessment of individual vital signs or chief complaints affect mortality during the hospital stay or within 30 days after arrival at the ED?2. What is the level of agreement between clinicians' triage decisions compared to each other or to a gold standard for each scale (reliability)? 3. How valid is each triage scale in predicting hospitalization and hospital mortality? A systematic search of the international literature published from 1966 through March 31, 2009 explored the British Nursing Index, Business Source Premier, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed. Inclusion was limited to controlled studies of adult patients (≥ 15 years) visiting EDs for somatic reasons. Outcome variables were death in ED or hospital and need for hospitalization (validity). Methodological quality and clinical relevance of each study were rated as high, medium, or low. The results from the studies that met the inclusion criteria and quality standards were synthesized applying the internationally developed GRADE system. Each conclusion was then assessed as having strong, moderately strong, limited, or insufficient scientific evidence. If studies were not available, this was also noted.We found ED triage scales to be supported, at best, by limited and often insufficient evidence.The ability of the individual vital signs included in the different scales to predict outcome is seldom, if at all, studied in the ED setting. The scientific evidence to assess interrater agreement (reliability) was limited for one triage scale and insufficient or lacking for all other scales. Two of the scales yielded limited scientific evidence, and one scale yielded insufficient evidence, on which to assess the risk of early death or hospitalization in patients assigned to the two lowest triage levels on a 5-level scale (validity).

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 359 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 350 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 55 15%
Student > Bachelor 48 13%
Researcher 45 13%
Other 33 9%
Student > Postgraduate 33 9%
Other 86 24%
Unknown 59 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 160 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 63 18%
Engineering 13 4%
Computer Science 12 3%
Social Sciences 10 3%
Other 36 10%
Unknown 65 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 October 2021.
All research outputs
#3,283,324
of 20,635,560 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#322
of 1,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,925
of 171,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,635,560 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,204 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 171,724 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.