IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pdig00/0000293.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Joyce Kigo
  • Stephen Kamau
  • Alishah Mawji
  • Paul Mwaniki
  • Dustin Dunsmuir
  • Yashodani Pillay
  • Cherri Zhang
  • Katija Pallot
  • Morris Ogero
  • David Kimutai
  • Mary Ouma
  • Ismael Mohamed
  • Mary Chege
  • Lydia Thuranira
  • Niranjan Kissoon
  • J Mark Ansermino
  • Samuel Akech

Abstract

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.Author summary: External validation plays a key role in the utilization of prognostic models. We externally validated a previously developed pediatric Smart Triage model developed in Uganda using data from two Kenyan hospitals, which could be used to identify high-risk, priority, and low-risk children presenting at the emergency department. The Smart Triage model showed good discrimination during external validation, but recalibration was needed to improve the calibration plot. Recalibration necessitated the use of new site-specific risk thresholds, but this did not change patient categorization.

Suggested Citation

  • Joyce Kigo & Stephen Kamau & Alishah Mawji & Paul Mwaniki & Dustin Dunsmuir & Yashodani Pillay & Cherri Zhang & Katija Pallot & Morris Ogero & David Kimutai & Mary Ouma & Ismael Mohamed & Mary Chege &, 2024. "External validation of a paediatric Smart triage model for use in resource limited facilities," PLOS Digital Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(6), pages 1-16, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000293
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000293
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000293
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000293&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000293?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000293. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: digitalhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.