Observational studyBMJ open2020
Appropriateness of emergency care use: a retrospective observational study based on professional versus patients' perspectives in Taiwan.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pragmatic Risk Stratification Method to Identify Emergency Department Presentations for Alternative Care Service Pathways: Registry-Based Retrospective Study Over 5 Years.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Geographic proximity to primary care providers as a risk-assessment criterion for quality performance measures.PloS one · 2022Article
- Patterns of Emergency Department visits for acute and chronic diseases during the two pandemic waves in Italy.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2021Observational
- Effectiveness of hospital emergency department regionalization and categorization policy on appropriate patient emergency care use: a nationwide observational study in Taiwan.BMC health services research · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objectives of this study are to refine the measurement of appropriate emergency department (ED) use and to provide a natural observation of appropriate ED use rates based on professional versus patient perspectives.
settingTaiwan has a population of 23 million, with one single-payer universal health insurance scheme. Taiwan has no limitations on ED use, and a low barrier to ED use may be a surrogate for natural observation of users' perspectives in ED use.
participantsIn 7 years, there were 1 835 860 ED visits from one million random samples of the National Health Insurance Database. MEASURES: Appropriate ED use was determined according to professional standards, measured by the modified Billings New York University Emergency Department (NYU-ED) algorithm, and further analysed after the addition of prudent patient standards, measured by explicit process-based and outcome-based criteria. STATISTICAL ANALYSES: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to reflect the performance of appropriate ED use measures, and sensitivity analyses were conducted using different thresholds to determine the appropriateness of ED use. The generalised estimating equation model was used to measure the associations between appropriate ED use based on process and outcome criteria and covariates including sex, age, occupation, health status, place of residence, medical resources area, date and income level.
resultsAppropriate ED use based on professional criteria was 33.5%, which increased to 63.1% when patient criteria were added. The AUC, which combines both professional and patient criteria, was high (0.85).
conclusionsThe appropriate ED use rate nearly doubled when patient criteria were added to professional criteria. Explicit process-based and outcome-based criteria may be used as a supplementary measure to the implicit modified Billings NYU-ED algorithm when determining appropriate ED use.
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.