Back

Defining and Characterizing Visits To Emergency Departments For Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Retrospective Analysis Using Two Publicly Available Databases

Wrightson, J. G.; Truong, L. K.; Haagaard, A.; Starcevich, C.; McGrail, K.; Truter, P.; Khan, K. M.; Ardern, C. L.

2025-08-16 emergency medicine
10.1101/2025.08.14.25333685 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe number of people with musculoskeletal conditions who visit the ED is estimated to range from 3-25% of all ED visits, challenging health service planning. The aim of this study was to examine how using different ICD code lists to define musculoskeletal conditions affected estimates for the number of people with musculoskeletal conditions who visit the ED. MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, we compared three different ICD code lists to see whether they provided different answers to the question: "What proportion of ED visits are due to musculoskeletal conditions?". Data were from two publicly available databases: the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV Emergency Department database and the California Department of Health Care Access and Information Hospital Emergency Department database. The total number of (a) ED visits and (b) potentially avoidable ED visits were estimated for the three code lists. Data are presented descriptively. ResultsVisits for musculoskeletal conditions accounted for between [~]6% to [~]18% of all ED visits, depending on the ICD code list used to identify visits. Between [~]6% to [~]8% of all ED visits were potentially avoidable visits for musculoskeletal conditions. ConclusionThere were larger differences in the total number of ED visits for musculoskeletal conditions identified by the different code lists than in the total number of potentially avoidable ED visits for musculoskeletal conditions. To accurately quantify and characterize patients with musculoskeletal conditions who present to the ED, researchers must first validate the criteria used to define musculoskeletal conditions.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.