ArticleHerz2010
[Patient satisfaction in acute coronary syndrome. Improvement through the establishment of a chest pain unit].
Article in Herz, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Criteria of the German Society of Cardiology for the establishment of chest pain units: update 2014.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2015Guideline
- Review
- Article
- Disease distribution and outcome in troponin-positive patients with or without revascularization in a chest pain unit: results of the German CPU-Registry.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2014Article
- Self-referral to chest pain units: results of the German CPU-registry.European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care · 2012Article
- Pre- and early in-hospital procedures in patients with acute coronary syndromes: first results of the "German chest pain unit registry".Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2012Article
- Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeChest pain units (CPUs) were established primarily in the United States with the aim of reducing hospital admissions and costs, whilst improving quality of life and patient care. Clinical trials have shown that these units are safe and practical; however, there was a need to investigate to what extent patients are satisfied with the care in CPUs. The aim of this study is to evaluate the experiences of patients receiving CPU care and routine emergency department (ED) treatment for acute chest pain. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients presenting with acute chest pain at the ED between May 2004 and June 2005 and at the CPU between July 2005 and May 2006 were evaluated in this retrospective analysis. Standardized data collection using all available clinical data as well as telephone follow-up was carried out. Evaluation was carried out on a school-mark basis and a quality assessment was performed.
resultsOf the total population, 479 patients (323 male, 156 female) were treated in the ED, whereas 1176 (743 male, 433 female) in the CPU. In the ED, 26 patients (5.4%) were diagnosed as ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 39 (8.1%) as non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and 16 (3.3%) as unstable angina pectoris (UAP). In 398 patients (83.1%) acute coronary syndrome (ACS) could be ruled out. In the CPU, the incidence of STEMI was 74 (6.3%), of NSTEMI 141 (12%) and of UAP 153 (13%). ACS was excluded in 808 patients (68.7%). Data on satisfaction with in-hospital treatment was available in 78.5% of cases. In the CPU, 92.2% of the patients judged their treatment as excellent/good, 5.9% as appropriate and 1.9% as poor. The distribution of satisfaction in the ED was significantly lower with 78.6% excellent/good, 18.5% appropriate and 2.9% poor.
conclusionThe establishment of a CPU at the University Medical Center of Mainz demonstrated a higher level of patient satisfaction compared to the treatment of patients with acute chest pain in the general ED.
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.