ArticleKansas journal of medicine2022
The Emergent General Surgical Patient: Evaluation Patterns in the Emergency Department.
Article in Kansas journal of medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: Emergency general surgery patients represent a growing segment of general surgical admissions and national healthcare burden. A paucity of literature exists evaluating the work-up of these patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED), particularly possible evaluation differentials between emergency physicians and physician assistants or advanced practice registered nurses (PA/ APRNs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in ED work-up of general surgical patients between emergency physicians and PA/APRNs. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of patients presenting to the ED with the chief complaint of abdominal pain. Demographic data, evaluating provider, laboratory and imaging tests, diagnostic data, and disposition were obtained. Results: Patient median age was 53.5 years, with 49% male and 81.6% Caucasian. Emergency physicians saw the majority (61.2%) of patients. Emergency physicians saw older patients (62.0 vs. 45.5 years; p = 0.017), and more patients that were anemic (28.3% vs. 14.3%) or with elevated creatinine levels (46.7% vs. 25.7%). There was no significant difference between groups for time in the ED (6.1 ± 2.4 vs. 5.7 ± 2.6 hours; p = 0.519), time to surgical consult (3.4 vs. 3.3 hours; p = 0.298), or time to the operating room (29.5 vs. 12.0 hours; p = 0.075). Patients seen by emergency physicians had a longer length of hospital stay (4.5 vs. 2 days; p = 0.002). Conclusions: Time in the ED and time to surgical consult did not vary between groups although patients first seen by emergency physicians had potentially higher acuity. Decreased hospital length of stay in patients seen by PA/APRNs may reflect disease-specific differences.
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.