ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2024
Airway, breathing, cellphone: a new vital sign?
Article in International journal of 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn emergency medicine, triage encompasses more than the initial prioritization of treatment; it also includes decisions about the most suitable level of care and disposition for each patient. However, the increasing use of mobile technology by patients in the emergency department (ED) introduces a new factor. This study aims to explore the relationship between patients' cellphone use at the time of initial assessment and final disposition in the ED.
methodsA prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted on 292 patients who presented to the ED between 9/1/2021 and 8/9/2022. Patients were stratified into two cohorts based on their behavior during the initial assessment: actively using a cell phone (n = 32) or not using a cell phone (n = 259). Final disposition was dichotomously recorded as admission or discharge. Hospital admission, hospital observation, and admission to the ED observation unit were consolidated into the combined category of admission.
resultsPatients not actively using their cell phone on initial assessment exhibited a discharge rate of 64%, while those engaged with their cellphones displayed notably higher dismissal rates at 94%. The calculated odds ratio (OR) of 8.4 (95% confidence interval: 1.96-36.0, p = 0.004) underscores a significantly heightened likelihood of dismissal among individuals actively using their cellphones, suggesting a potential association between cellphone use and a reduced probability of hospital admission.
conclusionThe study suggests an association between cellphone use during initial ED assessment and higher discharge rates. While this introduces a novel concept, the study's potential contribution to more informed and efficient triage decisions warrants careful consideration in future research and clinical applications.
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.