Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2021
Determinants of time-to-disposition in patients who underwent CT for pulmonary embolism: a retrospective study.
Observational study in BMC emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review on the impact of deep learning-driven worklist triage on radiology workflow and clinical outcomes.European radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Time to diagnostic certainty for saddle pulmonary embolism in hospitalized patients.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2023Observational
- Positive rate and quality assessment of CT pulmonary angiography in sickle cell disease: a case‒control study.Emergency radiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary embolism (PE) is a common life-threatening medical emergency that needs prompt diagnosis and management. Providing urgent care is a key determinant of quality in the emergency department (ED) and time-based targets have been implemented to reduce length of stay and overcrowding. The study aimed to determine factors that are associated with having a time-to-disposition of less than 4 h in patients with suspected PE who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CT-PA) to confirm the diagnosis.
methodsAfter obtaining approval from the ethics committee, we conducted a retrospective observational study by examining CT-PA scans that was performed to rule out PE in all adult patients presenting at the ED between January 2018 and December 2019. Demographic information and clinical information, as well as arrival and disposition times were collected from electronic health records. Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify the independent factors associated with meeting the 4-h target in the ED.
resultsIn total, the study involved 232 patients (76 men and 156 women). The median length of stay in the ED was 5.2 h and the 4-h target was achieved in 37% of patients. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that a positive CT-PA scan for PE was independently associated with meeting the four-hour target in the ED (odds ratio [OR]: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.1-4.8). Furthermore, Hemoptysis was the only clinical symptom that served as an independent factor associated with meeting the 4-h target in the ED (OR: 10.4; 95% CI: 1.2-90.8).
conclusionDespite the lower number of staff and higher volume of patients on weekends, patients who presented on weekends had shorter stays and were more likely to meet the 4-h target. Careful clinical assessment, prior to requesting a CT-PA scan, is crucial, since negative CT-PA scans may be associated with failure to meet the 4-h target.
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.