ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2022
Evaluation of the American Hospital Association Annual Survey for health services research in emergency medicine.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient Volume Requirements: Evaluation of the 2025 ACGME Proposal for Emergency Medicine Residency Programs.AEM education and training · 2025Article
- The association of the emergency department work environment on patient care and nurse job outcomes.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the American Hospital Association Annual Survey for health services research in emergency medicine.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 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
Objectives: Emergency department (ED) data are often used to address questions about access to and quality of emergency care. Our objective was to compare one of the most commonly used data sources for national ED information, the American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey, with a criterion database: the National Emergency Department Inventory (NEDI)-USA data set. Methods: We compared the 2015 and 2016 AHA surveys to the following 3 criterion standards: (1) the 2015 and 2016 NEDI-USA databases, which have information about all US EDs, including merged data from (2) Council of Teaching Hospitals (COTH) and (3) the Critical Access Hospital (CAH) program. We present descriptive results about the number of EDs in each data set; total and median visit volumes; locations in rural areas; and COTH, CAH, and freestanding ED (FSED) status. Results: The AHA survey identified 3893 US EDs in 2015. These EDs had a total annual visit volume of 129,197,493 visits, with a median of 22,772 visits (interquartile range, 8311-47,938). Compared with the NEDI-USA, the AHA included 1433 fewer EDs (-27%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -28% to -26%) and 23,615,163 (-15%) fewer visits. Specifically, AHA was missing 245 (-22%; 95% CI, -24% to -19%) of those located in rural areas, 268 (-20%; 95% CI, -22% to -18%) in a CAH, and 240 (-47%; 95% CI, -51% to -42%) FSEDs. We saw similar results using 2016 data. Conclusions: Although several aggregated results were similar between the compared data sources, the AHA data set excluded many US EDs, including many rural EDs and FSEDs. Consequently, the AHA underreported total ED visits by 15%. We encourage data users to be cautious when interpreting results from any 1 ED data source, including the AHA.
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.