Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39131827›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2024

Emergency department observation units: A scoping review.

Rebecca Goodwin, John Cyrus, Radina L Lilova, Sreedhatri Kandlakunta, Taruna Aurora

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Condition-Specific Protocols Used in the Emergency Department Observation Unit: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Emergency department observation units: A scoping review.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2024
    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.

Rebecca GoodwinDepartment of Emergency and Internal Medicine Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond Virginia USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4357-0727
John CyrusHealth Sciences Library Research and Education Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond Virginia USA.
Radina L LilovaVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine Richmond Virginia USA.
Sreedhatri KandlakuntaVirginia Commonwealth University Richmond Virginia USA.
Taruna AuroraDivision of Observation Medicine Clinical Decision Unit Co-Director Virginia Commonwealth University Health System Richmond Virginia USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This scoping review assesses existing research on observation units, examining diagnoses, clinical outcomes, finances, and health system comparisons to identify knowledge gaps related to patients in dedicated emergency observation units. Methods: The scoping review follows the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and was published prior to the review on Open Science Framework. Databases searched included MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase (Ovid), and CINAHL (Ebsco), with unpublished studies and gray literature identified via Web of Science. Articles were screened and extracted by two reviewers in Covidence. Any data or inclusion criteria inconsistencies were resolved through arbitration by a third researcher or by team consensus. Data were transferred to Excel for analysis. Results: A total of 1061 studies were assessed for eligibility: 461 articles met study inclusion criteria and 433 were excluded for being abstracts only. Of these 461 articles, the majority focused on cardiac diagnoses (111/461, 24%) and adult populations (321/461, 70%) and are retrospective or cohort studies (241/461, 52%). Fifty-four articles (12%) belonged to expert opinion category. Length of stay (191/461, 41%) is the most common outcome measure followed by morbidity/mortality (189/461, 41%), admission/failure rate (169/461, 37%), and protocol assessments (120/461, 26%). Few articles focused on staff models and structure but 121 of 461 (26%) mentioned it. Note that 162 (35%) measured hospital finances, and 120 (26%) articles performed some direct comparison to other forms of observation. Conclusion: While reimbursement and cardiac conditions are frequently assessed in emergency department observation unit literature, there is paucity of discussion on staffing models and other diagnoses remain less frequently explored. This review aims to spotlight future research areas in observation medicine.

Identifiers

PMID39131827
PMCPMC11315642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.