↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Initiating Diagnostic Studies on Patients With Abdominal Pain in the Waiting Room Decreases Time Spent in an Emergency Department Bed: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Published in
Annals of Emergency Medicine, August 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.06.040
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The effect of clinician screening of patients in the emergency department (ED) waiting room is unclear. This study aims to determine the effect of initiating laboratory and imaging studies from the ED waiting room on time in a bed, total ED time, and likelihood of patients leaving before completion of service. This was a prospective, randomized, controlled trial evaluating 1,659 nonpregnant adults with a chief complaint of abdominal pain, conducted in a public hospital ED when all ED beds were occupied and patients were in the waiting room awaiting definitive evaluation. After a brief screening examination, stable patients were randomized to either rapid medical evaluation (RME)+waiting room diagnostic testing (WRDT) or RME-only groups. Patients randomized to the RME+WRDT group had laboratory and imaging studies ordered at the discretion of the screening provider while in the waiting room. The primary outcome was time in an ED bed. Secondary outcomes were total ED time and rate of leaving before completion of service. Linear and logistic regression models were used to compare outcomes between groups. Between July 2014 and May 2015, 1,659 patients completed the study, 848 patients in the RME+WRDT group and 811 in the RME-only group. Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between groups. Patients in the RME+WRDT group had a significantly shorter mean time in an ED bed than the RME-only group, 245 minutes compared with 277 minutes (adjusted difference of 31 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI] 16 to 46 minutes). The RME+WRDT group also had significantly shorter mean total ED time from arrival to disposition than the RME-only group, 460 minutes compared with 504 minutes (adjusted difference 42 minutes; 95% CI 22 to 63 minutes). Of the 1,659 patients enrolled, 181 left before completion of service: 78 of 848 patients (9%) in the RME+WRDT group compared with 103 of 811 (13%) in the RME-only group (difference 3.5%; 95% CI 0.5% to 6.5%). By the end of their ED visit, patients in the RME+WRDT group had significantly more types of diagnostic studies ordered than those in the RME-only group, 2.59 versus 2.03 total unique test categories by location ordered (difference 0.56; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.68). Initiating diagnostic testing in the waiting room reduced time spent in an ED bed, total ED time, and rates of leaving before completion of service. For clinicians screening patients in the waiting room, initiating diagnostic evaluations may improve throughput in crowded EDs.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 17%
Other 8 13%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 17 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 18%
Engineering 4 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 19 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 July 2017.
All research outputs
#3,523,665
of 32,726,043 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#1,945
of 8,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,942
of 326,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#24
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,726,043 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,174 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,580 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.