## 3 Results  
The initial search generated 45,543 results. After eliminating those written prior to 2015, those not written in Spanish or English, and articles that did not deal with the handover of critical patients in an emergency setting, the results were narrowed to eight [24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31]. After exhaustive reading, five were excluded [25; 26; 27; 28; 30] as the handover did not take place in the study setting. Finally, three articles [24; 29; 31] were included in the systematic review. The PRISMA flow diagram graphically describes the results selection process (Figure 1). In terms of geographic location, two of the studies were carried out in the United States and the other in Saudi Arabia (Tables 2 and 3). Figure 1: Literature screening and selection based on PRISMA flowchart. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Tool** & **Objective** & **Language** & **Methodology** & **Sample** & **Town/City** & **Scope** & **Factors/Domains** & **Items** & **Response Options** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Shared Mental Model index (SMRM)} & To show that & & & & & & & 5 & \\  & greater & & & & & & & 4 & \\  & degree of & & & & & & & 6 & \\  & & & & & & & & & \\ Shared & SMM can be & & & & Nurses, & & 1-SMMi & & \\ Mental & achieved by & Retrospective & doctors, & & 2- Face & & Likert Scale \\ Model & using simple & descriptive & \(n=100\) & techni- & PICU & Validity & (0 to 7- \\ index & checklist- & English & and & pre = 50 & cians: & NICU & Assessment & & points) “I \\ (SMMi) & based & comparative & post = 50 & prehospital & EC & 3-Handover & 15 & don’t know” \\ ([PERSON], & handover & cohort study & & and & & and teaming & 15 & rated as 0 \\
2018, USA) & standardization and can & & & hospital & & & \\  & enhance & & & & & & \\  & other quality & & & & & & \\  & outcomes. & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Emergency Medicine} & To identify & & & & & 3 & \\  & the core & & & & 1-Non-clinical & 10 & \\  & elements & & & & & information & 9 & \\ Medicine & essential for & & & & 2-Clinical & & Likert scale \\ Handoff & an & & & & patient & (1 = rarely \\ Tool & emergency & English & Delphi & \(n=25\) & MS Doctors & EM & information & required) to \\ ([PERSON], & department & & & & 3-Emergency & & (10 = always \\
2019, Saudi & and to & & & & department & 32 & required) \\ Arabia & developing & & & & & course & 4-Emergency & \\  & standardized & & & & & department & \\  & handoff tools. & & & & & status & \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Cognitive Load Inventory for (CLH) (CJL)} & To measure & & & & In-patient & & IL: 5 & \\  & the cognitive & & & & ICU & & EL: 7 & \\  & load & & & & In-patient & & 1-Intrinsic & GM: 4 & Likert scale \\  & experienced & & & & non-ICU & load & (0 = strongly \\ Handoff & by trainees & & & & Emergency & 2-Extraneus & & disagree) to \\  & during & & & & depart- & & load & (10 = strongly \\ Young, & patient & & & & Amulatory & & load & \\
2020, USA) & handovers. & & & & Perioperative & & \\  & & & & & setting & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{c}{PICU: Pediatric Intensive Care Unit; NICU: Neonatal Intensive Care Unit; EC: Emergency Center; PED: Pediatric Emergency Department; ICC: Intraclass Correlation Coefficient; CVI-E Content validity index each of the items; CVI-S: Content validity index regarding the whole scale; KMO: Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: General characteristics of the assessment tools.