Observational studyInternal and emergency medicine2024
Emergency department use of an electronic differential diagnosis generator in the evaluation of critically ill patients.
Observational study in Internal and emergency medicine, 2024. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate diagnosis is an essential component of managing critically ill emergency department (ED) patients. Electronic diagnosis generators (EDGs) are software tools which assist clinicians in their diagnosis generation; however, they have not been evaluated for use for critical ED patients. We aimed to evaluate the use of an EDG for this population to determine its impact on diagnosis generation and diagnostic testing.
methodsWe performed an observational study on usage of an EDG in the high-acuity area of a tertiary care ED. The EDG was used by residents evaluating each patient in the area. The resident used the EDG when the case was felt to have diagnostic uncertainty and completed a data collection tool. Data were summarized by frequencies. Chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests were used to assess the association of added value of the EDG for diagnosis generation and diagnostic testing.
resultsOver the 8-month study period, the EDG was utilized to evaluate 98 critical ED patients, of whom 60% were female, 7% were pediatric, and 46% were elderly. It was used most commonly for gastroenterological, infectious disease/immunologic, metabolic/renal, and neuropsychiatric presentations, and was least used for trauma presentations. Use of the EDG led to a diagnosis not initially considered in 47% of cases and led to additional diagnostic testing in 4% of cases.
conclusionEDGs have some potential to improve diagnosis in critical EM patients by expanding the differential diagnosis and, to a lesser extent, altering diagnostic testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37980319What 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.