Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37302801›Full record

SynthesisThe oncologist2023

Drivers of Emergency Department Use Among Oncology Patients in the Era of Novel Cancer Therapeutics: A Systematic Review.

Lauren Fleshner, Andrew Lagree, Audrey Shiner, Marie Angeli Alera, Mateusz Bielecki, Robert Grant, Alex Kiss, Monika K Krzyzanowska, Ivy Cheng, William T Tran and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The oncologist, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Telehealth education for patients with cancer: a standalone solution for symptom relief?Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Clinical significances ofBiomedical reports · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. [Usefulness of the MPB-INFURG-SEMES model to predict bacteremia in the patient with solid tumor in the Emergency Department].Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2024
    Observational
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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lauren FleshnerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8534-6999
Andrew LagreeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.
Audrey ShinerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.
Marie Angeli AleraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.
Mateusz BieleckiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.
Robert GrantDivision of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Alex KissSunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Monika K KrzyzanowskaInstitute of Medical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Ivy ChengSunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
William T TranDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.
Sonal GandhiSunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sunnybrook Health Science Centre · CAUniversity Health Network · CA

Funding

Associated Medical Services (AMS)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients diagnosed with cancer are frequent users of the emergency department (ED). While many visits are unavoidable, a significant portion may be potentially preventable ED visits (PPEDs). Cancer treatments have greatly advanced, whereby patients may present with unique toxicities from targeted therapies and are often living longer with advanced disease. Prior work focused on patients undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy, and often excluded those on supportive care alone. Other contributors to ED visits in oncology, such as patient-level variables, are less well-established. Finally, prior studies focused on ED diagnoses to describe trends and did not evaluate PPEDs. An updated systematic review was completed to focus on PPEDs, novel cancer therapies, and patient-level variables, including those on supportive care alone.

methodsThree online databases were used. Included publications were in English, from 2012-2022, with sample sizes of ≥50, and reported predictors of ED presentation or ED diagnoses in oncology.

results45 studies were included. Six studies highlighted PPEDs with variable definitions. Common reasons for ED visits included pain (66%) or chemotherapy toxicities (69.1%). PPEDs were most frequent amongst breast cancer patients (13.4%) or patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy (20%). Three manuscripts included immunotherapy agents, and only one focused on end-of-life patients.

conclusionThis updated systematic review highlights variability in oncology ED visits during the last decade. There is limited work on the concept of PPEDs, patient-level variables and patients on supportive care alone. Overall, pain and chemotherapy toxicities remain key drivers of ED visits in cancer patients. Further work is needed in this realm.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalNeoplasmsHumansPainPatientsRetrospective Studiesemergency department utilizationoncologyquality improvementsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37302801
PMCPMC10712716
OpenAlexW4380272263

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.