ArticleJournal of global health2025
Emergency planned re-infusion therapy and hospitalisation for community-acquired pneumonia: a retrospective case-control study.
Article in Journal of global health, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a frequent reason for emergency department visits and leads to increased direct medical costs, particularly due to hospitalisation. This study aims to examine the differences between emergency planned re-infusion therapy and hospitalisation in patients with CAP. Methods: This retrospective case-control study involved 1889 CAP patients treated at the Emergency Internal Medicine Department of Class A tertiary Hospital in China from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2022. Patients were divided into groups receiving either emergency planned re-infusion therapy or hospitalisation. Independent sample t tests and χ Results: The study enrolled 1889 CAP patients. For PSI I-II patients, the improvement rates were 99.51% in the emergency planned re-infusion therapy group and 99.69% in the hospitalisation group, showing no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). Similarly, no significant difference was observed for PSI III patients (84.16 vs. 89.82%). However, significant differences emerged for PSI IV patients, with improvement rates of 50% in the emergency planned re-infusion therapy group and 90.59% in the hospitalisation group (P < 0.001). Statistically significant differences were also noted in treatment duration (5.13 ± 1.65 days vs. 7.60 ± 3.93 days, P < 0.001) and total treatment costs (1921.57 Chinese Yuan (CNY) ± 923.16 vs. 9083.80 CNY ± 3583.55, P < 0.001) between the two groups. Conclusions: Emergency planned re-infusion therapy for CAP is an effective and cost-efficient alternative that can reduce both treatment duration and costs, particularly for patients with PSI I-III. It is recommended that emergency physicians give priority to emergency re-infusion therapy for patients with PSI I-III. In addition, it is recommended that hospitals strengthen the classification and treatment training programmes for emergency department physicians to recognise the patients with PSI I-IV. Registration: The hospital
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.