Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23379744›Full record

SynthesisThe American journal of managed care2013

Emergency department visits for nonurgent conditions: systematic literature review.

Lori Uscher-Pines, Jesse Pines, Arthur Kellermann, Emily Gillen, Ateev Mehrotra

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The American journal of managed care, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 286 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
286citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

286 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Ophthalmology consultations characteristics in the emergency department at two level-one trauma centers in the United States.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. [Utilisation of emergency departments: Is the emergency level relevant?]Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2026
    Article
  20. Review

226 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lori Uscher-PinesRAND Corporation, Arlington, VA 22202, USA. luscherp@rand.org
Jesse Pines
Arthur Kellermann
Emily Gillen
Ateev Mehrotra

Funding

University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science InstitutionKL2RR024154 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI REIS, STEVEN E · 2006 to 2011
$22.2M
University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science InstitutionKL2TR000146 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI REIS, STEVEN E · 2012 to 2015
$8.7M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000146NCRR NIH HHS KL2 RR024154
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA large proportion of all emergency department (ED) visits in the United States are for nonurgent conditions. Use of the ED for nonurgent conditions may lead to excessive healthcare spending, unnecessary testing and treatment, and weaker patient-primary care provider relationships.

objectivesTo understand the factors influencing an individual's decision to visit an ED for a nonurgent condition.

methodsWe conducted a systematic literature review of the US literature. Multiple databases were searched for US studies published after 1990 that assessed factors associated with nonurgent ED use. Based on those results we developed a conceptual framework.

resultsA total of 26 articles met inclusion criteria. No 2 articles used the same exact definition of nonurgent visits. Across the relevant articles, the average fraction of all ED visits that were judged to be nonurgent (whether prospectively at triage or retrospectively following ED evaluation) was 37% (range 8%-62%). Articles were heterogeneous with respect to study design, population, comparison group, and nonurgent definition. The limited evidence suggests that younger age, convenience of the ED compared with alternatives, referral to the ED by a physician, and negative perceptions about alternatives such as primary care providers all play a role in driving nonurgent ED use.

conclusionsOur structured overview of the literature and conceptual framework can help to inform future research and the development of evidence-based interventions to reduce nonurgent ED use.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalHealth Services MisuseHumans

Identifiers

PMID23379744
PMCPMC4156292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.