ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
Predicting high-risk return at emergency department presentation for patients who undergo short-term revisits: the HANDLE-24 score.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changing Presenting Complaints During 72-Hour Emergency Department Revisits: Associations with Functional Status and Revisit Outcomes.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe 72-h emergency department (ED) revisit rate is a key quality indicator. While some revisits stem from medical errors or inadequate initial treatment, others are due to disease progression or a lack of accessible care. The development of a risk assessment tool could identify high-risk patients and improve resource management.
methodsThis study was conducted via an electronic health records system at a tertiary center in Taiwan. We derived a risk model via logistic regression and bootstrapping methods using a retrospective cohort of adults who underwent 72-h ED revisits between January 2019 and December 2020. The study population was divided into development (2019: 1224) and validation datasets (2020: 985). The primary outcome was high-risk return, defined as intensive care unit (ICU) admission or in-hospital mortality after 72-h ED return.
resultsOn the basis of the odds ratio, eight variables were independently associated with high-risk ED returns and subsequently included in the HANDLE-24 score (hypertension; symptoms of acute coronary syndrome; dysnatremia; dyspnea; liver disease; triage level escalation; and revisits within 24 h). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.816 (95% CI: 0.760-0.871, p < 0.001) in the development dataset and 0.804 (0.750-0.858) in the validation dataset. Patients can be divided into three risk categories on the basis of the HANDLE-24 score: low [0-8.5], moderate [9-11.5] and high [12-22] risk groups. The ability of our risk score to predict the rates of hospital admission, ICU admission and in-hospital mortality was significant according to the Cochran‒Armitage trend test.
conclusionThe HANDLE-24 score represents a simple tool that allows early risk stratification and suggests more aggressive therapeutic strategies for patients experiencing ED revisits. The risk of adverse outcomes in ED adults after revisiting can be swiftly assessed via easily available information.
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.