ArticleDer Anaesthesist2008
[Prehospital care of acute coronary syndrome by anaesthetists. Prospective comparison with the care standards of cardiologists].
Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality measurement in physician-staffed emergency medical services: a systematic literature review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2019Pooled it
- [ECG interpretation in rescue and emergency medical services in Germany: results of a cross-sectional study].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2026Article
- [Entrustable professional activities : Promising concept in postgraduate medical education].Der Anaesthesist · 2018Review
- Ischaemic heart disease: accuracy of the prehospital diagnosis-a retrospective study.Emergency medicine international · 2013Article
- [Therapy of acute myocardial infarction in the prehospital setting].Der Internist · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrehospital treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) by anaesthetists acting in physician staffed emergency medical service (EMS) was compared with that of the gold standard of cardiologists.
methodsProspectively 599 patients with assumed ACS were traced. Prehospital diagnosis and therapy were compared with re-evaluation of ECGs and diagnosis on hospital discharge.
resultsIn the case of ST-segment elevating myocardial infarction (STEMI) anaesthetists diagnosed 84% of cases correctly and cardiologists in 94% (p=0.048). False positive diagnoses were given in 11% by anaesthetists versus 5% by cardiologists (p=0.31). Anaesthetists accompanied all patients with instable angina versus 94% by cardiologists (p=0.06). Anaesthetists achieved 82% of patients to be pain-free versus 73% of cardiologists (p=0.01). Mortality until discharge was identical for the two groups (8.2%).
conclusionIn prehospital management of ACS cardiologists showed higher diagnostic competence, whereas anaesthetists revealed a greater degree of therapeutic caution. Patient mortality was not influenced.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.