ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
Transfer versus direct-visit patients in medically underserved emergency departments: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding patient transfer patterns in medically underserved areas is crucial for healthcare system optimization. This study analyzed the differences between transferred and direct-visit patients at a tertiary emergency department in a medically underserved region.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of 35,254 adult patients (≥ 18 years) visiting a tertiary care hospital Emergency Department in South Korea from January to December 2023. Patients were categorized into transferred (n = 7,069) or direct-visit (n = 28,185) groups. Demographics, clinical characteristics, resource utilization, and outcomes were compared using appropriate statistical tests. Logistic regression was used to analyze factors associated with clinical outcomes, including main diagnosis categories. Sensitivity analyses were performed excluding out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.
resultsTransferred patients were older (63.7 vs. 58.4 years, p < 0.001), more often male (59.4% vs. 49.7%, p < 0.001), and presented with higher acuity (KTAS 1-3: 87.5% vs. 31.9%, p < 0.001). Resource utilization was significantly higher in transferred patients, including hospitalization (55.1% vs. 23.4%, p < 0.001) and ICU admission (6.1% vs. 2.5%, p < 0.001). Paradoxically, in-hospital mortality was lower in transferred patients (0.47% vs. 0.75%, p = 0.012). After multivariable adjustment including diagnosis categories, transferred status remained associated with hospitalization (OR 3.42, 95% CI 3.22-3.64), ICU admission (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.73-2.27), and 30-day revisits (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.11-1.55), but inversely associated with mortality (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.31-0.74). However, after excluding out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, the mortality difference became non-significant (p = 0.604).
conclusionsTransferred patients in medically underserved areas present with higher acuity and consume more resources, but show lower mortality rates that may reflect effective triage and survivorship bias rather than superior care delivery. These findings highlight the importance of interfacility transfer networks while acknowledging selection effects in regional healthcare delivery.
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.