ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2026
Association Between Nasal Packing and 72-Hour Emergency Department Revisits in Adult Epistaxis: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate whether nasal packing reduces 72-hour emergency department (ED) revisit rates in adult patients with epistaxis. Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients aged 18 years or older who visited the ED for epistaxis between April 1, 2019, and March 31, 2024. Patients who were admitted were excluded. The primary outcome was an ED revisit for epistaxis within 72 hours of discharge. To adjust for confounders, we used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity scores, and performed sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching (PSM). Results: Among 948 patients analyzed, the unadjusted ED revisit rates were 5.1% in the nasal packing group and 6.1% in the no nasal packing group. In the IPTW-adjusted sample, the revisit rate remained lower in the nasal packing group (5.1% vs. 7.9%; OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.39 to 1.00]), though this difference did not reach statistical significance. Subgroup analyses showed a trend toward fewer revisits among patients with posterior bleeding (9.0% vs. 24.3%; OR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.11 to 0.85]) and among those with ongoing bleeding at presentation (4.4% vs. 11.8%; OR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.21 to 0.58]). A sensitivity analysis using PSM yielded similar results. Conclusion: Nasal packing may help reduce short-term ED revisits due to rebleeding in patients with epistaxis, especially in patients with posterior or active bleeding.
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.