Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35844666›Full record

ReviewEmergency cancer care2022

Recognizing the emergency department's role in oncologic care: a review of the literature on unplanned acute care.

Rebecca S Lash, Arthur S Hong, Janice F Bell, Sarah C Reed, Nicholas Pettit

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Emergency cancer care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Mixed methods scoping review of patients' experiences of urgent and emergency cancer care.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca S LashIndiana University, School of Nursing, Liberal Arts 303b, 2101 E Coliseum Blvd, Fort Wayne, IN 46815 USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7946-1798
Arthur S HongDivision of General Internal Medicine and Department of Population and Data Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390-6196 USA.
Janice F BellBetty Irene Moore School of Nursing, University of California, Davis, 2450 48th St #2638, Sacramento, CA 95817 USA.
Sarah C ReedCalifornia State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819 USA.
Nicholas PettitDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, 720 Eskenazi Ave, 3rd Floor FOB, Emergency Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA.
California State University, Sacramento · USIndiana University – Purdue University Fort Wayne · USSidney & Lois Eskenazi Hospital · USSouthwestern Medical Center · USUC Davis Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The global prevalence of cancer is rapidly increasing and will increase the acute care needs of patients with cancer, including emergency department (ED) care. Patients with cancer present to the ED across the cancer care continuum from diagnosis through treatment, survivorship, and end-of-life. This article describes the characteristics and determinants of ED visits, as well as challenges in the effort to define preventable ED visits in this population. Findings: The most recent population-based estimates suggest 4% of all ED visits are cancer-related and roughly two thirds of these ED visits result in hospitalization-a 4-fold higher ED hospitalization rate than the general population. Approximately 44% of cancer patients visit the ED within 1 year of diagnosis, and more often have repeat ED visits within a short time frame, though there is substantial variability across cancer types. Similar patterns of cancer-related ED use are observed internationally across a range of different national payment and health system settings. ED use for patients with cancer likely reflects a complex interaction of individual and contextual factors-including provider behavior, health system characteristics, and health policies-that warrants greater attention in the literature. Conclusions: Given the amount and complexity of cancer care delivered in the emergency setting, future research is recommended to examine specific symptoms associated with cancer-related ED visits, the contextual determinants of ED use, and definitions of preventable ED use specific to patients with cancer.

Indexed as

CancerEDEmergencyEmergency departmentEROncologyUseUtilizationVisitVisits

Identifiers

PMID35844666
PMCPMC9200439
OpenAlexW4282962111

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.