Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20170544›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2010

Predictive ability of an early diagnostic guess in patients presenting with chest pain; a longitudinal descriptive study.

François Verdon, Michel Junod, Lilli Herzig, Paul Vaucher, Bernard Burnand, Thomas Bischoff, Alain Pécoud, Bernard Favrat

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

François VerdonInstitute of General Medicine, University of Lausanne, Bugnon 44, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland.
Michel Junod
Lilli Herzig
Paul Vaucher
Bernard Burnand
Thomas Bischoff
Alain Pécoud
Bernard Favrat

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe intuitive early diagnostic guess could play an important role in reaching a final diagnosis. However, no study to date has attempted to quantify the importance of general practitioners' (GPs) ability to correctly appraise the origin of chest pain within the first minutes of an encounter.

methodsThe validation study was nested in a multicentre cohort study with a one year follow-up and included 626 successive patients who presented with chest pain and were attended by 58 GPs in Western Switzerland. The early diagnostic guess was assessed prior to a patient's history being taken by a GP and was then compared to a diagnosis of chest pain observed over the next year.

resultsUsing summary measures clustered at the GP's level, the early diagnostic guess was confirmed by further investigation in 51.0% (CI 95%; 49.4% to 52.5%) of patients presenting with chest pain. The early diagnostic guess was more accurate in patients with a life threatening illness (65.4%; CI 95% 64.5% to 66.3%) and in patients who did not feel anxious (62.9%; CI 95% 62.5% to 63.3%). The predictive abilities of an early diagnostic guess were consistent among GPs.

conclusionsThe GPs early diagnostic guess was correct in one out of two patients presenting with chest pain. The probability of a correct guess was higher in patients with a life-threatening illness and in patients not feeling anxious about their pain.

Indexed as

Physicians, FamilyChest PainCohort StudiesEarly DiagnosisGastrointestinal DiseasesHeart DiseasesHumansLung DiseasesMulticenter Studies as TopicPredictive Value of TestsSwitzerland

Identifiers

PMID20170544
PMCPMC2836993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.