Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42640879›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2026

Frequency and prognostic outcomes of emergency diagnosis in 13 non-neoplastic conditions in England: A population-based cohort study using linked electronic health records of 1.7 million patients.

Emma Whitfield, Becky White, Matthew E Barclay, Meena Rafiq, Nadine Zakkak, Marta Berglund, Hardeep Singh, Sean McPhail, Spiros Denaxas, Georgios Lyratzopoulos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Emma WhitfieldECHO (Epidemiology of Cancer Healthcare & Outcomes), Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, UCL (University College London), London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5427-7150
Becky WhiteECHO (Epidemiology of Cancer Healthcare & Outcomes), Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, UCL (University College London), London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0643-7890
Matthew E BarclayECHO (Epidemiology of Cancer Healthcare & Outcomes), Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, UCL (University College London), London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1148-1922
Meena RafiqECHO (Epidemiology of Cancer Healthcare & Outcomes), Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, UCL (University College London), London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1837-1542
Nadine ZakkakECHO (Epidemiology of Cancer Healthcare & Outcomes), Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, UCL (University College London), London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4155-7756
Marta BerglundECHO (Epidemiology of Cancer Healthcare & Outcomes), Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, UCL (University College London), London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-3015-3190
Hardeep SinghSafety, Quality & Well-Being Institute, Houston Methodist, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Sean McPhailNational Disease Registration Service, NHS England, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Spiros DenaxasInstitute of Health Informatics, UCL, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9612-7791
Georgios LyratzopoulosECHO (Epidemiology of Cancer Healthcare & Outcomes), Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, UCL (University College London), London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2873-7421

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn patients with cancer, diagnosis through or soon after the use of emergency hospital care ('emergency diagnosis') is associated with advanced disease and poor prognosis. The varied and complex reasons for emergency diagnoses-including rapid disease progression, patient factors, and system delays-are unlikely to be unique to cancer. However, little is known about the frequency and prognostic outcomes of emergency diagnosis in other conditions. We aimed to document the frequency of emergency diagnoses across various non-neoplastic conditions and examine the association of emergency diagnosis with clinical outcomes. METHODS AND

findingsWe analysed records from linked primary care, secondary care, and death data (Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), Hospital Episode Statistics, Office for National Statistics) for 1,701,154 patients with one of 13 exemplar conditions (axial spondyloarthritis, coeliac disease, coronary/ischaemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), Lyme disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson's disease, polycystic ovary syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, schizophrenia, subacute bacterial endocarditis, and tuberculosis) in England between 1999 and 2019. We examined the percentage of patients diagnosed as an emergency and compared their mortality and time in hospital in the year post-diagnosis with patients who were not diagnosed as an emergency. Emergency diagnosis occurred in at least 20% of patients for 9 out of 13 conditions in our sample, including more than 30% of patients with Parkinson's disease and 35% of patients with COPD. For 9 out of 13 conditions, there was a substantial increase (at least +10% difference) in 1-year mortality in patients diagnosed as an emergency versus patients who were not diagnosed as an emergency. After adjusting for age and year of diagnosis, deprivation, comorbidity burden, and the healthcare setting in which the diagnosis was made, patients diagnosed as an emergency were typically much more likely to die within one year. This association held even in conditions with generally good prognosis, such as coeliac disease (adjusted odds ratio 7.53, 95% CI [5.64, 10.1], women) and IBD (adjusted odds ratio 5.99, 95% CI [5.30, 6.78], men). Similarly large differences were observed for time in hospital in the year post-diagnosis by emergency diagnosis status. For example, adjusted rate ratios of 8.76 (95% CI [6.52, 11.8]) for men with coeliac disease, and 5.59 (95%CI [2.57, 12.2]) for women diagnosed with Lyme disease. The findings were consistent across two subsets of CPRD data (Aurum, GOLD). Analyses of patients with five supplementary cancer sites (brain, colon, lung, pancreas, and ovary) produced findings concordant with prior literature, supporting the validity of the study methods. The main study limitation is the assumption of accurate recording of diagnoses in health records.

conclusionsEmergency diagnosis is common and associated with worse clinical outcomes in a wide range of conditions with diverse aetiology. Further research and investment to reduce the number of emergency diagnoses is needed, particularly for diseases where diagnosis in community settings should be expected (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis and COPD), and conditions such as coeliac disease, IBD, and MS, where emergency diagnosis is associated with particularly poor outcomes.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsEmergency Service, HospitalNoncommunicable DiseasesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildCohort StudiesEmergency Room VisitsEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID42640879
PMCPMC13505939

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.