ArticleThe American journal of emergency medicine2013
Effect of advanced age and vital signs on admission from an ED observation unit.
Article in The American journal of emergency medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Hospitalisation in short-stay units for adults with internal medicine diseases and conditions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- A National Dataset Analysis of older adults in emergency department observation units.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2019Observational
- An Emergency Department Observation Unit Is a Feasible Setting for Multidisciplinary Geriatric Assessments in Compliance With the Geriatric Emergency Department Guidelines.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2018Article
- Emergency department observation units and the older patient.Clinics in geriatric medicine · 2013Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe primary objective was to determine the relationship between advanced age and need for admission from an emergency department (ED) observation unit. The secondary objective was to determine the relationship between initial ED vital signs and admission.
methodsWe conducted a prospective, observational cohort study of ED patients placed in an ED-based observation unit. Multivariable penalized maximum likelihood logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of need for hospital admission. Age was examined continuously and at a cutoff of 65 years or more. Vital signs were examined continuously and at commonly accepted cutoffs.We additionally controlled for demographics, comorbid conditions, laboratory values, and observation protocol.
resultsThree hundred patients were enrolled, 12% (n = 35) were 65 years or older, and 11% (n = 33) required admission. Admission rates were 2.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07%-14.9%) in older adults and 12.1% (95% CI, 8.4%-16.6%) in younger adults. In multivariable analysis, age was not associated with admission (odds ratio [OR], 0.30; 95% CI, 0.05-1.67). Predictors of admission included systolic pressure 180 mm Hg or greater (OR, 4.19; 95% CI, 1.08-16.30), log Charlson comorbidity score (OR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.57-5.46), and white blood cell count 14,000/mm(3) or greater (OR, 11.35; 95% CI, 3.42-37.72).
conclusionsAmong patients placed in an ED observation unit, age 65 years or more is not associated with need for admission. Older adults can successfully be discharged from these units. Systolic pressure 180 mm Hg or greater was the only predictive vital sign. In determining appropriateness of patients selected for an ED observation unit, advanced age should not be an automatic disqualifying criterion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.