ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Emergency Department Clinical Quality Registries: A Scoping Review.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Building a Dataset for Emergency Care by Identifying Consumer-Informed Quality Indicators: An Analysis of Focus Group Discussions.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2026Article
- The Epidemiology of Emergency Calls in a Tertiary Emergency Department for Admitted Patients: A TECOR Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEmergency departments (ED) are vital within the health system, often representing the first hospital contact for patients who are undifferentiated and may be critically ill. Although advancements in digital technology and increasing use of electronic medical records in health systems have led to the dramatic growth of large data sets, the presence of ED clinical registries to measure quality of care in the literature is currently unknown.
objectivesOur scoping review aims to investigate the extent of emergency department clinical registries reported in peer-reviewed literature.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review of ED registries in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Searches were undertaken in PUBMED, EMBASE, and SCOPUS. Studies were included if they described a clinical registry with a focus on the ED.
resultsWe identified 60 manuscripts with 27 identified as primary registries (6 had a general scope, 21 were condition or population specific). The remaining 33 papers were investigational reports sourced from the identified primary registries. Funding sources were identified for some registries: three by research grants, two by medical colleges, five by government organizations or initiatives, two by pharmaceutical companies, and three by research institutes. No funding information was provided in 12 studies. The reported registry periods ranged from 31 days to 4018 days (median 365 days, IQR 181-1309 days). A grey literature search revealed that six registries were ongoing.
conclusionsInternationally, there appears to be a wide degree of heterogeneity with primary ED registry publications and secondary publications. Having a standardized approach to ED registries is needed. Integrating ED registries with a learning health system model will enable clinicians to serve their community proactively and with a focus on quality, rather than the current safety-focused approach.
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.