↓ Skip to main content

Reliability and validity of pediatric triage tools evaluated in Low resource settings: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Reliability and validity of pediatric triage tools evaluated in Low resource settings: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12887-017-0796-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bhakti Hansoti, Alexander Jenson, Devin Keefe, Sarah Stewart De Ramirez, Trisha Anest, Michelle Twomey, Katie Lobner, Gabor Kelen, Lee Wallis

Abstract

Despite the high burden of pediatric mortality from preventable conditions in low and middle income countries and the existence of multiple tools to prioritize critically ill children in low-resource settings, no analysis exists of the reliability and validity of these tools in identifying critically ill children in these scenarios. The authors performed a systematic search of the peer-reviewed literature published, for studies pertaining to for triage and IMCI in low and middle-income countries in English language, from January 01, 2000 to October 22, 2013. An updated literature search was performed on on July 1, 2015. The databases searched included the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline, PubMed and Web of Science. Only studies that presented data on the reliability and validity evaluations of triage tool were included in this review. Two independent reviewers utilized a data abstraction tool to collect data on demographics, triage tool components and the reliability and validity data and summary findings for each triage tool assessed. Of the 4,717 studies searched, seven studies evaluating triage tools and 10 studies evaluating IMCI were included. There were wide varieties in method for assessing reliability and validity, with different settings, outcome metrics and statistical methods. Studies evaluating triage tools for pediatric patients in low and middle income countries are scarce. Furthermore the methodology utilized in the conduct of these studies varies greatly and does not allow for the comparison of tools across study sites.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 12%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Professor 7 7%
Other 25 25%
Unknown 27 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Engineering 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 29 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 16 July 2018.
All research outputs
#5,434,088
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#855
of 3,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,102
of 418,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#20
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,021 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 418,939 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.