ArticleSingapore medical journal2025
Oncology-related emergencies discharged from the emergency department.
Article in Singapore medical journal, 2025. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCancer patients attending emergency departments (EDs) often present with acute symptoms and are frequently admitted. This study aimed to characterise the profile of oncology patients who were discharged from the ED.
methodsThis was a retrospective audit of patients with cancer-related diagnoses who presented to the ED at the Singapore General Hospital (SGH) over a 6-month period from 1 October 2018 to 31 March 2019 and were directly discharged from the ED. Data was extracted from the hospital's electronic medical record system.
resultsOf the 492 participants included in the study, the majority were triaged as Priority 2 (61.4%), while 30.7% were triaged as Priority 3, 6.9% as Priority 1 and 1.0% as Priority 4. There was no statistical difference between the National Early Warning scores across the different triage categories in these patients. The most common complaint was (44.3%), followed by genitourinary symptoms (19.5%) and those related to devices, catheters or stomas (17.3%). More investigations of all types were done for patients being managed in Priority 1 (57.6%) than in the other triage categories (40.1% for Priority 2, 23.2% for Priority 3 and 12.0% for Priority 4). Treatment procedures carried out were mainly symptomatic (analgesics, antiemetics, proton pump inhibitors) for 79.8% of the patients. There were no significant differences in the proportion of patients requiring various treatment modalities among the triage categories.
conclusionSelected oncological patients may potentially be managed in an ambulatory setting.
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.