ArticleCJEM2026
The inter-rater reliability of the TEDNQ for evaluating emergency department note quality.
Article in CJEM, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAudits are a strategy for assessing and improving the quality of Emergency Department documentation. Based on expert input, the TEDNQ (Tool for Emergency Department Note Quality) was recently developed for this purpose. This study assessed the inter-rater reliability of the TEDNQ and its correlation with global impressions of Emergency Department note quality.
methodsFour emergency physicians received standardized training and then evaluated 100 notes from visits for patients with abdominal pain presenting to a Canadian academic Emergency Department. Raters provided TEDNQ and global impression scores. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using Fleiss' kappa for global scores and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for TEDNQ scores. Point biserial correlations between TEDNQ and global impressions for the set of notes were calculated.
resultsAcross all raters, the ICC for the total TEDNQ scores was 0.40 (95% CI 0.30-0.50), 0.40 (95% CI 0.30-0.51) for the universal component, and 0.23 (95% CI 0.13-0.34) for the conditional components. The Fleiss' kappa for global impressions across all pairs of reviewers was 0.18 (95% CI 0.10-0.26). The point biserial correlation between TEDNQ and global scores was 0.44 (p < 0.001).
conclusionsWhile validated tools to assess documentation quality are essential, the recently developed TEDNQ is not yet suitable for widespread use by emergency physicians. Global impressions of note quality also demonstrate limited usefulness due to poor inter-rater reliability. Further refinement and testing of the TEDNQ is warranted prior to prospective evaluation across diverse emergency department settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42323522What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.