ArticleJournal of healthcare quality research
[Revisit after discharge from the emergency department in a cohort of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and analysis based on the healthcare resource used for follow-up. RESALSEVID study].
Article in Journal of healthcare quality research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Unplanned re-attendance to emergency department of patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome: a situational analysis.BMC health services research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCOVID-19 pneumonia is a manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection and in most cases involves hospital admission. There are recommendations according to which these patients can be discharged without hospital admission, but there is no evidence regarding the revisit and the most appropriate type of follow-up. The objective of the RESALSEVID study was to investigate the variables associated with the 30-day revisit (Rev30d) in a group of patients discharged directly from 4 emergency departments (ED) with COVID-19 pneumonia, and analyze whether there were differences based on 4 different tracking devices.
methodAnalysis of a prospective cohort of patients discharged directly from the ED with COVID-19 pneumonia in 4 hospital with different models of follow-up at discharge (primary care, hospitalization at home [HaH] phone and in person, HaH phone, hospital phone).
resultsFive hundred twenty patients were included, with a mean age of 50.1 years and 51% men. Rev30d was 18.3% and was related only to immunosuppression, odds ratio 4.49 (95% confidence interval 1.10-18.24); p=0.022. There was no difference in Rev30d based on the follow-up model used at discharge from the ED.
conclusionsThere are some recommendations that allow the safe discharge of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, with no differences in Rev30d depending on the type of follow-up.
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.