ArticlePloS one2015
Clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of accelerated diagnostic protocol in a chest pain center compared with routine care of patients with chest pain.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chest pain unit implementation in a multidisciplinary hospital: a retrospective observational study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Health Care Quality Improvement for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Retrospective Study Based on Propensity-Score Matching Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- The efficacy and safety of evaluating elderly patients using a comprehensive diagnostic protocol via a chest pain unit.Internal and emergency medicine · 2020Article
- Change to costs and lengths of stay in the emergency department and the Brisbane protocol: an observational study.BMJ open · 2016Observational
- 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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe aim of this study was to compare in patients presenting with acute chest pain the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of an accelerated diagnostic protocol utilizing contemporary technology in a chest pain unit versus routine care in an internal medicine department. METHODS AND
resultsHospital and 90-day course were prospectively studied in 585 consecutive low-moderate risk acute chest pain patients, of whom 304 were investigated in a designated chest pain center using a pre-specified accelerated diagnostic protocol, while 281 underwent routine care in an internal medicine ward. Hospitalization was longer in the routine care compared with the accelerated diagnostic protocol group (p<0.001). During hospitalization, 298 accelerated diagnostic protocol patients (98%) vs. 57 (20%) routine care patients underwent non-invasive testing, (p<0.001). Throughout the 90-day follow-up, diagnostic imaging testing was performed in 125 (44%) and 26 (9%) patients in the routine care and accelerated diagnostic protocol patients, respectively (p<0.001). Ultimately, most patients in both groups had non-invasive imaging testing. Accelerated diagnostic protocol patients compared with those receiving routine care was associated with a lower incidence of readmissions for chest pain [8 (3%) vs. 24 (9%), p<0.01], and acute coronary syndromes [1 (0.3%) vs. 9 (3.2%), p<0.01], during the follow-up period. The accelerated diagnostic protocol remained a predictor of lower acute coronary syndromes and readmissions after propensity score analysis [OR = 0.28 (CI 95% 0.14-0.59)]. Cost per patient was similar in both groups [($2510 vs. $2703 for the accelerated diagnostic protocol and routine care group, respectively, (p = 0.9)].
conclusionAn accelerated diagnostic protocol is clinically superior and as cost effective as routine in acute chest pain patients, and may save time and resources.
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.