External validation of a paediatric Smart triage model for use in resource limited facilities

Résumé fourni par la source

Models for digital triage of sick children at emergency departments of hospitals in resource poor settings have been developed. However, prior to their adoption, external validation should be performed to ensure their generalizability. We externally validated a previously published nine-predictor paediatric triage model (Smart Triage) developed in Uganda using data from two hospitals in Kenya. Both discrimination and calibration were assessed, and recalibration was performed by optimizing the intercept for classifying patients into emergency, priority, or non-urgent categories based on low-risk and high-risk thresholds. A total of 2539 patients were eligible at Hospital 1 and 2464 at Hospital 2, and 5003 for both hospitals combined; admission rates were 8.9%, 4.5%, and 6.8%, respectively. The model showed good discrimination, with area under the receiver-operator curve (AUC) of 0.826, 0.784 and 0.821, respectively. The pre-calibrated model at a low-risk threshold of 8% achieved a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval, (CI):89%-96%), 81% (CI:74%-88%), and 89% (CI:85%-92%), respectively, and at a high-risk threshold of 40%, the model achieved a specificity of 86% (CI:84%-87%), 96% (CI:95%-97%), and 91% (CI:90%-92%), respectively. Recalibration improved the graphical fit, but new risk thresholds were required to optimize sensitivity and specificity.The Smart Triage model showed good discrimination on external validation but required recalibration to improve the graphical fit of the calibration plot. There was no change in the order of prioritization of patients following recalibration in the respective triage categories. Recalibration required new site-specific risk thresholds that may not be needed if prioritization based on rank is all that is required. The Smart Triage model shows promise for wider application for use in triage for sick children in different settings.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.