Observational studyPloS one2026
Development and internal validation of a simple risk stratification score for unplanned emergency department revisits within 24 hours after discharge: A retrospective observational study.
Observational study in PloS one, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying patients at risk of very early emergency department revisits may help support discharge decision-making, but the extent to which routinely available index‑visit data can predict unplanned returns within 24 h remains unclear. Prior studies suggest that revisits are heterogeneous and influenced by factors beyond the initial encounter, underscoring the need to clarify-not overstate-the predictive value of simple, pragmatic tools.
methodsWe conducted a single‑center retrospective study of 2,774 emergency department discharge visits in 2024 in which blood tests were performed. The primary outcome was an unplanned revisit within 24 h to the same emergency department. Two physicians independently adjudicated revisits using administrative and chart data. Candidate predictors included arrival mode, initial vital signs, and routinely available laboratory variables. Continuous variables were screened across prespecified percentile‑based cutoffs, and a simple additive score was constructed from dichotomized items. Internal validation used 2,000 bootstrap resamples with full repetition of item selection and cutoff search. Calibration was assessed using the calibration slope, intercept, and Brier score.
resultsThere were 91 unplanned revisits (3.28%). Five dichotomized variables were retained: no ambulance use, C‑reactive protein ≥0.39 mg/dL, lymphocyte percentage ≤13.7%, red cell distribution width ≥13.5%, and mean corpuscular volume ≤87 fL. The odds ratio for revisit per 1‑point increase was 1.55 (95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.82). Apparent discrimination was modest (area under the curve, 0.651; 95% confidence interval, 0.592-0.711), with an optimism‑corrected area under the curve of 0.633. Apparent calibration in the derivation cohort was acceptable (slope 1.000; intercept 0.000; Brier score 0.0313). At a ≥ 4‑point threshold, specificity was 92.77% and sensitivity 20.88%.
conclusionsA five‑item score based on index‑visit information showed a graded association with 24‑h revisit risk but modest predictive performance. This highlights the limitations of prediction using discharge‑time data alone and emphasizes the need for external validation and prospective evaluation before clinical implementation.
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.