ArticleBMJ open2024
What strategies are used to select patients for direct admission under acute medicine services? A protocol paper for a systematic review of the literature.
Article in BMJ open, 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
introductionDespite unprecedented pressures on urgent and emergency care services, there is no clear consensus on how to provide acute medical care delivery in the UK. These pressures can lead to significant delays in care for patients presenting with emergencies when admitted via traditional routes through the emergency department. Historically, a separate pathway has existed where patients are directly admitted to acute medicine services without attending the emergency department. It is suspected that there is a significant variation in how these patients are selected, triaged and managed in the UK. This systematic review will assess the methods and evidence base used for direct patient admissions to acute medicine services compared with traditional admission pathways through the emergency department. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review of the literature will be conducted and a total of six databases will be searched: MEDLINE (Ovid), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE in process, Web of Science, CINAHL and Embase. This will include studies from the period 01 January 1975 to 24 January 2024. Covidence software will be the platform for the extraction of data and paper screening with the selection process reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram. Both title and abstract screening and full-text screening will be done by two reviewers independently. The risk of bias of included studies will be assessed using the methods introduced in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the tool used will be dependent on the type of study. Where possible, outcomes will be dealt with as continuous variables. Change percentage will be assessed between any pathway characteristic or outcome. The ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review does not require ethical approval. Findings will be disseminated widely in peer-reviewed publication and media, including conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023495786.
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.