ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2015
Comparison of ESC and NICE guidelines for patients with suspected coronary artery disease: evaluation of the pre-test probability risk scores in clinical practice.
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Old and New NICE Guidelines for the Evaluation of New Onset Stable Chest Pain: A Real World Perspective.BioMed research international · 2018Review
- The 2016 update to NICE CG95 guideline for the -investigation of new onset stable chest pain: more -innovation, but at a cost?Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2017Article
- Pre-test probability risk scores and their use in contemporary management of patients with chest pain: One year stress echo cohort study.JRSM open · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) have recently published guidelines for investigating patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). Both provide a risk score (RS) to assess the pre-test probability for CAD to guide clinicians to undertake the most effective investigation. The aim of the study was to establish whether there is a difference between the two RS models. We retrospectively reviewed records of 479 patients who presented to a UK district general hospital with chest pain between August 2011 and April 2013. The RS was calculated using ESC and NICE guidelines and compared. From the 479 patients, 277 (58%) were male and the mean age was 60 years. The mean RS was greater using NICE guidelines compared with ESC (66.3 vs 47.9%, 18.4% difference; p<0.0001). The difference in mean RS was smaller in patients with typical chest pain (13.0%). When we divided the cohort based on NICE criteria into 'high'- and 'low'-risk groups, the difference in the mean RS was 24.3% in the 'high'-risk group (p<0.001) compared with 2.8% in the 'low'-risk group. The UK NICE risk score model overestimates risk compared with the ESC model.
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.