ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Experience of a Neuro-Emergency Expert in the Emergency Department during One Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neurological Emergencies in Incarcerated Patients: Clinical Characteristics, Severity, and Outcomes in an Emergency Department with an Embedded Neuro-Emergency Expert Model.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Comprehensive Assessment of Acute Isolated or Prominent Dysarthria in the Emergency Department: A Neuro-Emergency Expert's Experience beyond Stroke.Brain sciences · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to evaluate the overall clinical characteristics of patients treated by a neuro-emergency expert dedicated to the emergency department (ED) as an attending neurologist during the COVID-19 pandemic. We included adult patients who visited the ED between 1 January and 31 December 2020 and were treated by a neuro-emergency expert. We retrospectively obtained and analyzed the data on patients' clinical characteristics and outcome. The neuro-emergency expert treated 1155 patients (mean age, 62.9 years). The proportion of aged 18-40 years was the lowest, and the most common modes of arrival were public ambulance (50.6%) and walk-in (42.3%). CT and MRI examinations were performed in 94.4 and 33.1% of cases, respectively. The most frequent complaints were dizziness (31.8%), motor weakness (24.2%), and altered mental status (15.8%). The ED diagnoses were acute ischemic stroke (19.8%), benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (14.2%), vestibular neuritis (9.9%), and seizure (8.8%). The mean length of stay in the ED was 207 min. Of the patients, 55.0% were admitted to the hospital, and 41.8% were discharged for outpatient follow-up. Despite the longer stay and the complexity and difficulty of neurological diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic, the accurate diagnosis and treatment provided by a neuro-emergency expert can be presented as a good model in the ED.
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.