Nicola Parenti1, Maria Letizia Bacchi Reggiani2, Primiano Iannone3, Daniela Percudani4, Dawn Dowding5. 1. University of Parma, Parma, Italy. Electronic address: nipar71@yahoo.it. 2. Biostatistic, University of Bologna, Italy. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine of Hospital Lavagna, Genova, Italy. 4. Administrative, University of Parma, Italy. 5. Columbia University School of Nursing and Visiting Nursing Service of New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review to check the level of validity and reliability of the Manchester Triage System and the quality of reporting of literature on this topic. DESIGN: This is a systematic review based on the PRISMA guideline on reporting systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: The systematic search of the international literature published from 1997 through 30 November 2012 in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cinahl, Web of Knowledge, and Scopus databases. REVIEW METHODS: This review included quantitative and qualitative research investigating the reliability and validity of the Manchester Triage System for the broad population of adults and children visiting the emergency department. After a systematic selection process, included studies were assessed on their quality by three researchers using the STARD guidelines. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in the review. The studies investigated the inter- and intra-rater reliability using the "kappa" statistic; the validity was tested with many measures: validity in predicting mortality, hospital admission, under- and overtriage, used resources, and length of stay in the emergency department, as well as a reference standard rating. CONCLUSIONS: In this review, the Manchester Triage System shows a wide inter-rater agreement range with a prevalence of good and very good agreement. Its safety was low because of the high rate of undertriage and the low sensitivity in predicting higher urgency levels. The high rate of overtriage could cause unnecessarily high use of resources in the emergency department. The quality of the reporting in studies of the reliability and validity of the Manchester Triage System is good.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review to check the level of validity and reliability of the Manchester Triage System and the quality of reporting of literature on this topic. DESIGN: This is a systematic review based on the PRISMA guideline on reporting systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: The systematic search of the international literature published from 1997 through 30 November 2012 in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cinahl, Web of Knowledge, and Scopus databases. REVIEW METHODS: This review included quantitative and qualitative research investigating the reliability and validity of the Manchester Triage System for the broad population of adults and children visiting the emergency department. After a systematic selection process, included studies were assessed on their quality by three researchers using the STARD guidelines. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in the review. The studies investigated the inter- and intra-rater reliability using the "kappa" statistic; the validity was tested with many measures: validity in predicting mortality, hospital admission, under- and overtriage, used resources, and length of stay in the emergency department, as well as a reference standard rating. CONCLUSIONS: In this review, the Manchester Triage System shows a wide inter-rater agreement range with a prevalence of good and very good agreement. Its safety was low because of the high rate of undertriage and the low sensitivity in predicting higher urgency levels. The high rate of overtriage could cause unnecessarily high use of resources in the emergency department. The quality of the reporting in studies of the reliability and validity of the Manchester Triage System is good.
Authors: Hanna M Oßwald; Linda Harenberg; Hannah Jaschonek; Sibu Mundiyanapurath; Jan C Purrucker; Geraldine Rauch; Peter A Ringleb; Simon Nagel Journal: J Neurol Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Stefan Morreel; Veronique Verhoeven; Hilde Philips; Jasmine Meysman; Ines Homburg; Diana De Graeve; K G Monsieurs Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Joao Gabriel Rosa Ramos; Beatriz Perondi; Roger Daglius Dias; Leandro Costa Miranda; Claudio Cohen; Carlos Roberto Ribeiro Carvalho; Irineu Tadeu Velasco; Daniel Neves Forte Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-04-02 Impact factor: 9.097