ArticleFocus (American Psychiatric Publishing)2023
Contemporary Practices for Medical Evaluation of the Psychiatric Patient in the Emergency Department.
Article in Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variability in documentation of neurological and psychiatric examinations among emergency department patients with behavioral health-related presentations: a retrospective study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Article
- Factors associated with cognitive impairment for people with mental health disorders: screening from general hospitals and an emergency care unit in Brazil.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Mental Health Review Board Members' understanding of the policy guideline on 72-hour assessment.Curationis · 2024Article
- Community-Based Crisis Services, Specialized Crisis Facilities, and Partnerships With Law Enforcement.Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) · 2023Review
- Emergency Department Presentations for Catatonia: A 2019-2021 National Emergency Department Sample Study.Journal of the Academy of Consultation-Liaison PsychiatryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although emergency department (ED) visits for patients with mental illness are frequent, medical evaluation (i.e., "medical screening") of patients presenting with psychiatric complaints is inconsistent. This may largely be related to differing goals for medical screening, which often vary according to specialty. Although emergency physicians typically focus on stabilization of life-threatening diseases, psychiatrists tend to believe that care in the ED is more comprehensive, which often places the two fields at odds. The authors discuss the concept of medical screening, review the literature on this topic, and offer a clinically oriented update to the 2017 American Association for Emergency Psychiatry consensus guidelines on medical evaluation of the adult psychiatric patient in the ED.
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.