ArticleThe American journal of cardiology2015
Diagnostic yield of routine noninvasive cardiovascular testing in low-risk acute chest pain patients.
Article in The American journal of cardiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk stratification of chest pain in the emergency department using artificial intelligence applied to electrocardiograms.Open heart · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- All Together Now: Synthesizing Evidence-Based Protocols to Simplify and Expedite Emergency Department Evaluation of Low-Risk Patients.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020Article
- Limited Use of Outpatient Stress Testing in Young Patients With Atypical Chest Pain.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2018Article
- Observational
- Incidence and predictors of acute coronary syndrome within a year following a negative stress test-a false sense of security: is routine screening any useful?Annals of translational medicine · 2018Review
- Angina treatments and prevention of cardiac events: an appraisal of the evidence.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2015Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Contemporary professional society recommendations for patients presenting to the emergency department with acute chest pain and low clinical risk encourage noninvasive testing for coronary artery disease (CAD) before, or shortly after, discharge from the emergency department. Recent reports indicate that a strategy of universal testing has a low diagnostic yield and may not be necessary. We examined data from a prospective cohort of patients who underwent evaluation of acute chest pain in our chest pain evaluation center (CPEC). Patients presenting with normal initial electrocardiogram and cardiac injury markers were eligible for observation and noninvasive testing for CAD in our CPEC. All patients were asked to participate in the prospective registry. The 213 subjects who consented were young, obese, and predominantly women (mean age 43.8 ± 12.5, mean body mass index of 30.8 ± 7, 64.8% women). Prevalence of diabetes was 10.3% (hypertension 37.1%, hyperlipidemia 17.8%, and current tobacco use 23.5%) Exercise treadmill testing was the primary method of evaluation (n = 104, 49%) followed by computed tomography coronary angiography (n = 58, 27%) and myocardial perfusion imaging (n = 20, 9%). Of 203 patients who underwent testing, 11 had abnormal test results, 4 of whom had obstructive CAD based on invasive coronary angiography. The positive predictive value for obstructive CAD after an abnormal test was 45.5%, and the overall diagnostic yield for obstructive CAD was 2.5%. In conclusion, in patients with acute chest pain evaluated in a CPEC, the yield of routine use of noninvasive testing for CAD was minimal and the positive predictive value of an abnormal test was low.
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.