Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
-
Traditionally, emergency department (ED) physicians rely on their clinical examination to differentiate between cellulitis and abscess when evaluating skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI). Management of an abscess requires incision and drainage, whereas cellulitis generally requires a course of antibiotics. Misdiagnosis often results in unnecessary invasive procedures, sedations (for incision and drainage in pediatric patients), or a return ED visit for failed antibiotic therapy. ⋯ Existing evidence indicates that POCUS is useful in identifying abscess in ED patients with SSTI. In cases where physical examination is equivocal, POCUS can assist physicians to distinguish abscess from cellulitis.
-
Risk stratification of emergency department (ED) patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) using preendoscopic risk scores can aid ED physicians in disposition decision-making. We conducted a systematic review to assess the predictive value of preendoscopic risk scores for 30-day serious adverse events. ⋯ The GBS with a cutoff point of 0 was superior over other cutoff points and risk scores for identifying low-risk patients but had a very low specificity. None of the risk scores identified by our systematic review were robust and, hence, cannot be recommended for use in clinical practice. Future prospective studies are needed to develop robust new scores for use in ED patients with UGIB.
-
Risk stratification of emergency department (ED) patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) using preendoscopic risk scores can aid ED physicians in disposition decision-making. We conducted a systematic review to assess the predictive value of preendoscopic risk scores for 30-day serious adverse events. ⋯ The GBS with a cutoff point of 0 was superior over other cutoff points and risk scores for identifying low-risk patients but had a very low specificity. None of the risk scores identified by our systematic review were robust and, hence, cannot be recommended for use in clinical practice. Future prospective studies are needed to develop robust new scores for use in ED patients with UGIB.