Observational studyMedicine2020
Characteristics of frequent adult emergency department users: A Korean tertiary hospital observational study.
Observational study in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Challenges of The Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approach of Patients with Infectious Pathology in Emergency Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Factors related to the frequent use of emergency department services in Korea.BMC emergency medicine · 2023Observational
- Case management intervention of high users of the emergency department of a Portuguese hospital: a before-after design analysis.BMC emergency medicine · 2022Article
- Factors Associated with Emergency Department Visits and Consequent Hospitalization and Death in Korea Using a Population-Based National Health Database.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Prediction value of the LACE index to identify older adults at high risk for all-cause mortality in South Korea: a nationwide population-based study.BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Healthcare-Seeking Behaviors among Frequent Emergency Department Users: A Cohort Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emergency department (ED) crowding is a public health burden that impedes the provision of high-quality emergency care and is related to poor outcomes. Frequent ED visits are known to contribute to ED crowding. This study aimed to identify frequent ED users' characteristics and risk factors related to frequent ED visits.A retrospective observational study was conducted using ED-based data derived from adult patients at a university hospital. The main exposure variable was frequent ED visits, which were defined as ≥4 visits within 12 months (January 1-December 31, 2018). Characteristics and risk factors for frequent ED users were evaluated using stepwise regression analysis.Within the study period, there were 36,932 ED visits involving 29,759 patients. Of these, 3031 (8.2%) visits were from 556 (1.9%) patients classified as frequent ED users. The independent risk factors for frequent ED visits were older patients (≥65 years); the winter season; daytime discharge from ED; patients with medical aid insurance; and patients designated as high acuity at their first visit. Patients with a malignant neoplasm, mental health disorder, alcohol-related liver disease, chronic kidney disease, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were associated with more frequent ED visits.Frequent ED users comprised a significant proportion of total ED visits. Frequent ED users were more likely than occasional ED users to be in poorer health, older, or have a chronic disease or a mental health disorder.
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.