Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17878265›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2007

Effectiveness and safety of chest pain assessment to prevent emergency admissions: ESCAPE cluster randomised trial.

Steve Goodacre, Elizabeth Cross, Cath Lewis, Jon Nicholl, Simon Capewell, ESCAPE Research Team

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00869245 (Efficacy Evaluation of Observation Unit Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT00869245 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2009, after this paper: background citation

Efficacy Evaluation of Observation Unit Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in Patients With Intermediate Risk Acute Chest Pain

TypeinterventionalSponsorWake Forest University Health SciencesRan2009 to 2011Enrolled124ConditionsAcute Coronary Syndrome, Chest PainArmsOU - Cardiac MRI, OU - Conventional Care Testing
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. [Chest pain units or chest pain algorithm?].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2014
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Cost burden of non-specific chest pain admissions.Irish journal of medical science · 2013
    Article
  8. Cost effectiveness of chest pain unit care in the NHS.BMC health services research · 2008
    Article
  9. Effectiveness of chest pain units.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2007
    Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Steve GoodacreMedical Care Research Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DA. s.goodacre@sheffield.ac.uk
Elizabeth Cross
Cath Lewis
Jon Nicholl
Simon Capewell
ESCAPE Research Team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine whether introducing chest pain unit care reduces emergency admissions without increasing reattendances and admissions over the next 30 days.

designCluster randomised before and after intervention trial.

setting14 diverse acute hospitals in the United Kingdom.

participantsPatients attending the emergency department with acute chest pain during the year before and the year after the intervention started.

interventionEstablishment of chest pain unit care compared with continuation of routine care.

main outcome measuresProportion of chest pain attendances resulting in admission; reattendances and admissions over the next 30 days; daily emergency medical admissions (all causes); and proportion of emergency department attendances with chest pain.

resultsThe introduction of chest pain unit care was associated with weak evidence of an increase in emergency department attendances with chest pain (16% v 3.5%; P=0.08); no change in the proportion of chest pain attendances resulting in admission (odds ratio 0.998, 95% confidence interval 0.940 to 1.059; P=0.945); small increases in the proportion reattending (odds ratio 1.10, 1.00 to 1.21; P=0.036) or being admitted (1.30, 0.97 to 1.74; P=0.083) over the next 30 days; and evidence of increased daily medical admissions (1.7 per day, 95% confidence interval 0.8 to 2.5; P<0.001). However, this last finding was highly sensitive to changes in the method used to handle missing data.

conclusionThe introduction of chest pain unit care did not reduce the proportion of patients with chest pain admitted and may have been associated with increased emergency department attendances with chest pain.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN55318418.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChest PainCluster AnalysisEmergenciesEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain ClinicsTreatment OutcomeUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID17878265
PMCPMC1995498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.