ArticleEmergency medicine international2025
Analyzing the Reasons and Hospital Admission Rates of 72-Hour Emergency Department Revisits.
Article in Emergency medicine international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Profile of Otorhinolaryngology-Related Emergency Department Visits and Revisits in a Tertiary Care Center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Analyzing the Reasons and Hospital Admission Rates of 72-Hour Emergency Department Revisits.Emergency medicine international · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Emergency department (ED) revisits are considered a significant indicator of the quality of care provided and are used as a benchmark for the performance of individual providers and institutions. The aim of this study is to assess ED revisit rates, reasons, and hospital admission rates among our adult ED patients. Methods: This is a retrospective chart review study conducted in a single-center tertiary referral hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Study participants comprised adult patients who attended the ED, had been discharged, and had an ED revisit within 72 h from April 2019 to January 2020. Results: A total of 573 patients met our inclusion criteria, of whom 53.1% were males. The majority of the patients (74.5%) revisiting the ED were categorized as CTAS Level 3, with gastrointestinal complaints being the most common presentation for revisits (23.6%). During the second visit, 94%, 4%, 0.7%, and 0.3% of the participants were discharged, admitted, discharged against medical advice, and died, respectively. Disease progression was the most common cause of revisits at 96.5%. The factors that showed statistically significant associations with nondischarge disposition in the second visit were CTAS levels in the first and second visits, dementia, functional dependency, and reason for the revisit. Conclusion: Most ED visits within 72 h are due to disease progression rather than system- or physician-related issues, and the majority of these patients are safely discharged after the second visit. Identification of high-risk patients-such as those with higher CTAS levels, dementia, or functional dependency-may aid emergency physicians in implementing targeted discharge planning and coordinated outpatient follow-up to reduce unnecessary revisits and optimize use of emergency services. Our findings highlight the importance of structured post-discharge support and underscore the need for tailored interventions in resource-limited healthcare settings.
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.