Dear Editor,
With great interest we have read the recent systematic review on “Nonspecific Complaints (NSCs) in the Emergency Department” [
1] and would like to comment on two key aspects: First, we agree that NSCs should be considered a major emergency presentation. Different nomenclatures have been used in the past, such as “homecare impossible”, “unexplained symptoms”, “general disability”, “atypical symptoms”, and “nonspecific functional decline” (for review, see [
2]). This diversity has not been helpful for a clinical definition or clinical research on nonspecific complaints [
3]. Second, the authors did not present any definition of nonspecific complaints, but included studies using varying definitions from very different settings, such as Emergency Medical Services (EMS).
However, NSCs were first defined by Nemec et al [
4] This original definition was based on the inclusion of patients in need of external resources, excluding patients with life-saving interventions. The original BANC studies excluded hemodynamically unstable patients (i.e. Emergency Severity Index (ESI) level 1; patients in need of life-saving interventions), as the work-up of shock is standardized. Similarly, the lowest triage categories were excluded as well, as these patients can usually be managed as see-and-treat outpatients and are not at risk for adverse outcomes. The rationale to focus on these patients is the lack of a standardized work-up, the high use of resources, and the risk of adverse outcomes [
5‐
8]. All publications originating from the prospective multicenter Basel Nonspecific Complaints (BANC) cohorts used the above definition of NSCs [
9‐
12], but other studies have used varying criteria to define NSCs [
13]. There is an inherent difference regarding inclusion criteria between the studies considered by the present systematic review, e.g., some of the included studies were retrospective, and one study [
14] has used a post-hoc classification of nonspecific complaints [
15].
Surprisingly, the original publication by Nemec et al. [
4], coining the term, was excluded from the present systematic review. We believe that this was based on arbitrary inclusion criteria. The argument to exclude studies deliberately focusing on certain triage categories does not seem valid unless an alternative, stringent definition of NSCs is used.
Therefore, we suggest that further research should be based on a common definition of nonspecific complaints in emergency presentations, in order to reduce heterogeneity of studies.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.