Instituto D'Or de Pesquisa e Ensino (IDOR), Instituto de Medicina Social (IMS) da Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Instituto D'Or de Pesquisa e Ensino (IDOR), Departamento de Pediatria da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Instituto de Puericultura e Pediatria Martagão Gesteira (IPPMG)-UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Emerg Med J. 2019 Apr;36(4):231-238. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2018-207781. Epub 2019 Jan 10.
To present a systematic review on the reliability of triage systems for paediatric emergency care.
A search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scientific Electronic Library Online, Nursing Database Index and Spanish Health Sciences Bibliographic Index for articles in English, French, Portuguese or Spanish was conducted to identify reliability studies of five-level triage systems for patients aged 0-18 years published up to April 2018. Two reviewers performed study selection, data extraction and quality assessment as recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.
Twenty studies on nine triage systems were selected: the National Triage System (n=1); the Australasian Triage Scale (n=3); the paediatric Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (PedCTAS) (n=5); the Manchester Triage System (MTS) (n=1); the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) (n=5); an adaptation of the South African Triage Scale for the Princess Marina Hospital in Botswana (n=1); the Soterion Rapid Triage System (n=1); the Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System-paediatric version (n=2); the Paediatric Risk Classification Protocol (n=1). Ten studies were performed with actual patients, while the others used hypothetical scenarios. The studies were rated low (n=14) or moderate (n=6) quality. Kappa was the most used statistic, although many studies did not specify the weighting. PedCTAS, MTS and ESI V.4 exhibited substantial to almost perfect agreement in moderate quality studies.
There is some evidence on the reliability of the PedCTAS, MTS and ESI V.4, but most studies are limited to the countries where they were developed. Efforts are needed to improve the quality of the studies, and cross-cultural adaptation of those tools is recommended in countries with different professional qualification and sociocultural contexts.
对儿科急救护理分类系统的可靠性进行系统评价。
检索 MEDLINE、Cochrane 图书馆、拉丁美洲和加勒比健康科学文献、科学电子图书馆在线、护理数据库索引和西班牙健康科学文献索引,以获取截至 2018 年 4 月发表的 0-18 岁患者使用五层级分类系统的可靠性研究,语言为英语、法语、葡萄牙语或西班牙语。由两名评审员按照系统评价和荟萃分析报告的首选条目进行研究选择、数据提取和质量评估。
共选择了 20 项涉及 9 个分类系统的研究:国家分类系统(n=1);澳大利亚分类量表(n=3);儿科加拿大分类和 acuity 量表(PedCTAS)(n=5);曼彻斯特分类系统(MTS)(n=1);紧急严重程度指数(ESI)(n=5);博茨瓦纳 Princess Marina 医院南非分类量表的改编版(n=1);Soterion 快速分类系统(n=1);快速紧急分类和治疗系统-儿科版(n=2);儿科风险分类方案(n=1)。其中 10 项研究采用了实际患者,其余研究采用了假设场景。这些研究的质量评级为低(n=14)或中(n=6)。kappa 是最常用的统计量,尽管许多研究未指定权重。在中等质量研究中,PedCTAS、MTS 和 ESI V.4 显示出实质性到几乎完美的一致性。
有一些关于 PedCTAS、MTS 和 ESI V.4 可靠性的证据,但大多数研究仅限于这些工具的开发国家。需要努力提高研究质量,并建议在具有不同专业资格和社会文化背景的国家对这些工具进行跨文化适应性调整。