SynthesisBMC emergency medicine2025
Prognostic models for predicting patient arrivals in emergency departments: an updated systematic review and research agenda.
Synthesis 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Stakeholder perspectives on implementing ED time series forecasting: a qualitative interview study.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmergency departments (ED) are struggling with an increased influx of patients. One of the methods to help departments prepare for surges of admittance is time series forecasting (TSF). The aim of this study was to create an overview of current literature to help guide future research. Firstly, we aimed to identify external variables used. Secondly, we tried to identify TSF methods used and their performance.
methodsWe included model development or validation studies that were forecasting patient arrivals to the ED and used external variables. We included studies on any forecast horizon and any forecasting methodology. Literature search was done through PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and Embase databases. We extracted data on methods and variables used. The study is reported according to TRIPOD-SRMA guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST and authors' own dimensions.
resultsWe included 30 studies. Our analysis has identified 10 different groups of variables used in models. Weather and calendar variables were commonly used. We found 3 different families of TSF methods. However, none of the studies followed reporting guidelines and model code was seldom published.
conclusionsOur results identify the need for better reported results of model development and validation to better understand the role of external variables used in created models, as well as for more uniform reporting of results between different research groups and external validation of created models. Based on our findings, we also suggest a future research agenda for this field. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.