ArticleThe American journal of emergency medicine2025
Trends in stimulant-related emergency department visits among adults in California, 2017-2021.
Article in The American journal of emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methamphetamine Use and HIV Risk Behaviors in a Cohort of Homeless-Experienced Adults Who Use Drugs.AIDS and behavior · 2026Article
- Substance use and treatment utilization patterns of working-age American men who were not in employment, education, or training (NEET) during the COVID-19 pandemic.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2026Article
- Substance use and treatment utilization patterns of working-age American men who were not in employment, education, or training (NEET) during the COVID-19 pandemic.Research square · 2026Article
- Substance use and treatment utilization patterns of working-age American men who were not in employment, education, or training (NEET) during the COVID-19 pandemic.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStimulants are becoming increasingly prevalent among overdoses, yet little is understood about how stimulant use impacts emergency department (ED) utilization.
methodsUsing data from California's Department of Healthcare Access and Information, we conducted a five-year trend analysis of stimulant-related ED visits from acute care hospitals in California from 2017 to 2021. For each year, we determined the stimulant-related ED visit rate per 100,000 ED visits for adults aged ≥18 utilizing ICD-10 diagnosis codes. We estimated the percent changes in overall stimulant-related visit rates during the study period and by subgroup, including by demographic characteristics, Charlson comorbidity index score (CCIS), and cardiovascular (CV) diagnoses. We used chi-squared analyses to examine changes in trends over time.
resultsThe rate of stimulant-related ED visits increased from 2064.4 per 100,000 ED visits in 2017 to 2586.1 per 100,000 ED visits in 2021, a 25.3 % increase (P < 0.001). By race/ethnicity, people identified as Native American/Alaska Natives had the highest ED visit rate in 2021 (4713.5 per 100,000 ED visits) and the largest increase of 60.8 % (P < 0.001). The proportion of stimulant-related ED visits with CV disease diagnoses increased from 13.8 % in 2017 to 18.0 % in 2021, a relative increase of 30.8 % (P < 0.001).
conclusionsStimulant-related ED visits are increasing among adults in California, especially among non-white populations and those with higher comorbidity. This sharp rise highlights the critical need for targeted interventions and harm reduction strategies that consider the unique effects of stimulant use on ED rates and CV outcomes.
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.