Bettina Wandl, Jan D Kellerer, Verena Fuhrmann, Karina Tapinova, Dominik Roth, Gerhard Müller
{"title":"紧急程度指数诊断测试的准确性:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Bettina Wandl, Jan D Kellerer, Verena Fuhrmann, Karina Tapinova, Dominik Roth, Gerhard Müller","doi":"10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001262","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and importance: </strong>Efficient triage of emergency patients is crucial for the immediate identification of critically ill individuals and enables rapid interventions to improve patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) for identifying critically ill adult patients in the emergency department (ED).</p><p><strong>Settings and participants: </strong>We considered all studies (case-control and cohort studies) that evaluated the DTA of the ESI in adult patients attending an ED. The outcome of a triage system is the high urgency of treatment, commonly used reference standards are short-term mortality or admission to an ICU.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched four bibliographic databases up to 13 February 2025. Screening, inclusion, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality followed standard Cochrane methodology. We calculated measures of DTA for all studies against the reference standards and calculated pooled estimates using a bivariate random effects model.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We included 27 studies, representing 510 777 patients. Methodological quality according to the QUADAS-2 tool was high, except for risk of bias in patient selection, which was high for 12 (44%) studies. A total of 18 studies provided data for the reference standard short-term mortality, with an estimated pooled sensitivity of 81.8 [95% confidence interval (CI): 71.8-88.9], specificity of 70.5 (60.5-78.8), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 10.8 (5.4-21.4), positive likelihood ratio of 2.77 (2.02-3.81), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.26 (0.16-0.41). For the reference standard ICU admission, based on 10 studies, pooled estimates were sensitivity of 81.5 (65.2-91.2), specificity of 81.7 (71.9-88.6), DOR of 19.7 (5.5-70.7), positive likelihood ratio of 4.45 (2.58-7.84), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.23 (0.11-0.49). Those results remained stable in the sensitivity analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ESI showed a moderate-to-high diagnostic accuracy for identifying critically ill patients at the ED. These findings support the role of the ESI guided by a principal understanding of the limitations inherent to any triage tool.</p>","PeriodicalId":11893,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"325-334"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12382730/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic test accuracy of the Emergency Severity Index: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Bettina Wandl, Jan D Kellerer, Verena Fuhrmann, Karina Tapinova, Dominik Roth, Gerhard Müller\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001262\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and importance: </strong>Efficient triage of emergency patients is crucial for the immediate identification of critically ill individuals and enables rapid interventions to improve patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) for identifying critically ill adult patients in the emergency department (ED).</p><p><strong>Settings and participants: </strong>We considered all studies (case-control and cohort studies) that evaluated the DTA of the ESI in adult patients attending an ED. The outcome of a triage system is the high urgency of treatment, commonly used reference standards are short-term mortality or admission to an ICU.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched four bibliographic databases up to 13 February 2025. Screening, inclusion, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality followed standard Cochrane methodology. We calculated measures of DTA for all studies against the reference standards and calculated pooled estimates using a bivariate random effects model.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We included 27 studies, representing 510 777 patients. Methodological quality according to the QUADAS-2 tool was high, except for risk of bias in patient selection, which was high for 12 (44%) studies. A total of 18 studies provided data for the reference standard short-term mortality, with an estimated pooled sensitivity of 81.8 [95% confidence interval (CI): 71.8-88.9], specificity of 70.5 (60.5-78.8), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 10.8 (5.4-21.4), positive likelihood ratio of 2.77 (2.02-3.81), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.26 (0.16-0.41). For the reference standard ICU admission, based on 10 studies, pooled estimates were sensitivity of 81.5 (65.2-91.2), specificity of 81.7 (71.9-88.6), DOR of 19.7 (5.5-70.7), positive likelihood ratio of 4.45 (2.58-7.84), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.23 (0.11-0.49). Those results remained stable in the sensitivity analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ESI showed a moderate-to-high diagnostic accuracy for identifying critically ill patients at the ED. These findings support the role of the ESI guided by a principal understanding of the limitations inherent to any triage tool.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11893,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"325-334\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12382730/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001262\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001262","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Diagnostic test accuracy of the Emergency Severity Index: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Background and importance: Efficient triage of emergency patients is crucial for the immediate identification of critically ill individuals and enables rapid interventions to improve patient outcomes.
Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) for identifying critically ill adult patients in the emergency department (ED).
Settings and participants: We considered all studies (case-control and cohort studies) that evaluated the DTA of the ESI in adult patients attending an ED. The outcome of a triage system is the high urgency of treatment, commonly used reference standards are short-term mortality or admission to an ICU.
Methods: We searched four bibliographic databases up to 13 February 2025. Screening, inclusion, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality followed standard Cochrane methodology. We calculated measures of DTA for all studies against the reference standards and calculated pooled estimates using a bivariate random effects model.
Main results: We included 27 studies, representing 510 777 patients. Methodological quality according to the QUADAS-2 tool was high, except for risk of bias in patient selection, which was high for 12 (44%) studies. A total of 18 studies provided data for the reference standard short-term mortality, with an estimated pooled sensitivity of 81.8 [95% confidence interval (CI): 71.8-88.9], specificity of 70.5 (60.5-78.8), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 10.8 (5.4-21.4), positive likelihood ratio of 2.77 (2.02-3.81), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.26 (0.16-0.41). For the reference standard ICU admission, based on 10 studies, pooled estimates were sensitivity of 81.5 (65.2-91.2), specificity of 81.7 (71.9-88.6), DOR of 19.7 (5.5-70.7), positive likelihood ratio of 4.45 (2.58-7.84), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.23 (0.11-0.49). Those results remained stable in the sensitivity analysis.
Conclusion: ESI showed a moderate-to-high diagnostic accuracy for identifying critically ill patients at the ED. These findings support the role of the ESI guided by a principal understanding of the limitations inherent to any triage tool.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Emergency Medicine is the official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine. It is devoted to serving the European emergency medicine community and to promoting European standards of training, diagnosis and care in this rapidly growing field.
Published bimonthly, the Journal offers original papers on all aspects of acute injury and sudden illness, including: emergency medicine, anaesthesiology, cardiology, disaster medicine, intensive care, internal medicine, orthopaedics, paediatrics, toxicology and trauma care. It addresses issues on the organization of emergency services in hospitals and in the community and examines postgraduate training from European and global perspectives. The Journal also publishes papers focusing on the different models of emergency healthcare delivery in Europe and beyond. With a multidisciplinary approach, the European Journal of Emergency Medicine publishes scientific research, topical reviews, news of meetings and events of interest to the emergency medicine community.
Submitted articles undergo a preliminary review by the editor. Some articles may be returned to authors without further consideration. Those being considered for publication will undergo further assessment and peer-review by the editors and those invited to do so from a reviewer pool.