SynthesisThe western journal of emergency medicine2026
Systematic Review of Interventions to Optimize Emergency Department Care of Patients with Cancer.
Synthesis in The western journal of emergency medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionApproximately 12% of patients with cancer annually visit the emergency department (ED) for disease- or treatment-related issues. These patients often face delays in care, including prolonged wait times and extended length of stay (LOS), contributing to ED crowding, delayed treatment, and increased mortality. Numerous studies have investigated interventions to reduce LOS and prevent ED visits for patients with cancer. However, a systematic overview of these interventions is currently lacking. In this review we aimed to present interventions that optimize input, throughput and output in ED care by reducing ED LOS or ED visits for patients with cancer.
methodsWe searched five electronic library databases: Medline ALL via Ovid; Embase.com; Web of Science Core Collection; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials via Wiley; and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria for this review were as follows: 1) research on (a subset of) patients with cancer; 2) conducted in or in collaboration with the ED; 3) the introduction of an intervention aimed at optimizing ED input, throughput, and output; and 4) performance of the intervention was measured using outcomes, such as ED LOS, number of ED visits or hospitalizations, use of acute-care services, or time to antibiotics.
resultsThe literature search yielded 11,357 articles. After removing duplicates, 7,315 unique articles remained for screening. Of these, 109 were selected for detailed abstract review. Following this second screening, 35 articles underwent full-text analysis, and 16 articles met all inclusion criteria. These studies identified four categories of interventions: scoring systems (n=5); dedicated cancer urgent care facilities (n=5); protocolized care (n=3); and staffing optimization (n=3). Among scoring systems, use of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale reduced ED visits (relative rate (RR) = 0.92) and hospitalizations (RR = 0.86), while the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia score showed higher specificity (98.3%) than the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer score (54.2%) for identifying low-risk febrile neutropenia.
conclusionWe identified four categories of intervention that could potentially reduce ED visits and ED LOS, of which scoring systems showed the most potential. Rather than developing new tools, future efforts should prioritize the implementation, validation, and refinement of these existing strategies to optimize treatment of cancer patients in the emergency department.
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.