ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2025
Management of non-traumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department: a multicentre, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 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.
- Article
- Bedside Clinical Ultrasound Performed by Family Physicians in Adult Patients With Abdominal Pain in a Hospital Emergency Department: Protocol for a Pilot Quasi-Experimental Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Risk factors for mis-triage between medical and surgical causes in emergency patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain: a retrospective study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Optimising evaluation pathways for non-traumatic abdominal pain in emergency settings.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Even though abdominal pain is one of the most frequent chief complaints in emergency medicine, standardized care pathways are still lacking. In this study, a standardized, digitally-supported care pathway for non-traumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department was investigated with regard to emergency department length of treatment, pain score at discharge, and patient satisfaction. Methods: In a prospective mixed-methods, multicentre, cluster-randomised, controlled stepped wedge trial, adult patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain were enrolled in ten emergency departments across Germany. The new care pathway was implemented at randomly assigned time points (every four months) within a 24-month recruitment period and consisted of a structured care pathway for the management of abdominal pain patients in the emergency department. During the control period, the standard treatment for abdominal pain in the emergency department was administered. The planned sample size was 2000. Primary outcomes were: emergency department length of treatment, pain score (numeric rating scale 0-10), and patient satisfaction score at the end of emergency department treatment. Exploratory safety outcomes were serious adverse events within 30 days. Trial registration: DRKS00021052. Findings: Of 2119 patients, 1017 were enrolled in the control group, and 1102 in the intervention group. Crude mean emergency department length of treatment was 5.2 h (±3.0) in the control group, and 4.3 h (±2.2) in the intervention group while the adjusted mean difference was -0.31 h (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to 0.07). Mean pain score was 4.3 (±2.5) in the control group, and 3.6 (±2.4) in the intervention group, resulting in an adjusted mean difference of -0.69 (95% CI -1.04 to -0.34). The adjusted mean difference of patient's satisfaction score was 1.54 (95% CI 0.96 to 2.12); mean control group: 26.7 (±4.0); mean intervention group: 27.9 (±3.8)). Serious adverse events were comparable between both groups while 30-day mortality was 2.3% (n = 23) in the control group, and 0.8% (n = 9) in the intervention group (mean difference: -1.4% (95% CI -2.5 to -0.4)). Interpretation: The APU process is safe and did not increase emergency department length of treatment, while patient-reported outcomes and safety were improved accompanied by an increased use of diagnostic procedures. Funding: The study was funded by the German Innovations Funds.
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.