Observational studyThe American journal of emergency medicine2019
A National Dataset Analysis of older adults in emergency department observation units.
Observational study in The American journal of emergency medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
- State of the Art: Observation Units in the Emergency Department, an Interim Practice Update and Policy Review.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026Article
- Outcomes of Patients Placed in an Emergency Department Observation Unit of a Comprehensive Cancer Center.JCO oncology practice · 2022Observational
- Implementing a multidisciplinary rapid geriatric observation unit for non-critical older patients referred to hospital: observational study on real-world data.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2022Observational
- Structure and processes of emergency observation units with a geriatric focus: a scoping review.BMC geriatrics · 2021Article
- The impact on thirty day readmissions for patients hospitalized for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease admitted to an observation unit versus an inpatient medical unit: A retrospective observational study.Chronic respiratory diseaseObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEmergency Department (ED) Observation Units (Obs Units) are prevalent in the US, but little is known regarding older adults in observation. Our objective was to describe the Obs Units nationally and observation patients with specific attention to differences in care with increasing age.
designThis is an analysis of 2010-2013 data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), a national observational cohort study including ED patients. Weighted means are presented for continuous data and weighted percent for categorical data. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with placement in and admission from observation.
resultsThe number of adult ED visits varied from 100 million to 107 million per year and 2.3% of patients were placed in observation. Adults ≥65 years old made up a disproportionate number of Obs Unit patients, 30.6%, compared to only 19.7% of total ED visits (odds ratio 1.5 (95% CI 1.5-1.6), adjusting for sex, race, month, day of week, payer source, and hospital region). The overall admission rate from observation was 35.6%, ranging from 31.3% for ages 18-64 years to 47.5% for adults ≥85 years old (p < 0.001). General symptoms (e.g., nausea, dizziness) and hypertensive disease were the most common diagnoses overall. Older adults varied from younger adults in that they were frequently observed for diseases of the urinary system (ICD-9 590-599) and metabolic disorders (ICD-9 270-279).
conclusionsOlder adults are more likely to be cared for in Obs Units. Older adults are treated for different medical conditions than younger adults.
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.