ArticleJournal of clinical medicine research2015
Prevalence of Acute Coronary Syndrome in Patients Suspected for Pulmonary Embolism or Acute Aortic Syndrome: Rationale for the Triple Rule-Out Concept.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nomogram to differentiate between aortic dissection and non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: a retrospective cohort study.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2021Article
- Pulmonary Embolism Presenting as ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Diagnostic Trap.The American journal of case reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aims of the study were to evaluate the prevalence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) among patients presenting with atypical chest pain who are evaluated for acute aortic syndrome (AAS) or pulmonary embolism (PE) with computed tomoangiography (CTA) and discuss the rationale for the use of triple rule-out (TRO) protocol for triaging these patients.
methodsThis study is a retrospective analysis of patients presenting with atypical chest pain and evaluated with thoracic (CTA), for suspicion of AAS/PE. Two physicians reviewed patient files for demographic characteristics, initial CT and final clinical diagnosis. Patients were classified according to CTA finding into AAS, PE and other diagnoses and according to final clinical diagnosis into AAS, PE, ACS and other diagnoses.
resultsFour hundred and sixty-seven patients were evaluated: 396 (84.8%) patients for clinical suspicion of PE and 71 (15.2%) patients for suspicion of AAS. The prevalence of ACS and AAS was low among the PE patients: 5.5% and 0.5% respectively (P = 0.0001), while the prevalence of ACS and PE was 18.3% and 5.6% among AAS patients (P = 0.14 and P = 0.34 respectively).
conclusionThe prevalence of ACS and AAS among patients suspected clinically of having PE is limited while the prevalence of ACS and PE among patients suspected clinically of having AAS is significant. Accordingly patients suspected for PE could be evaluated with dedicated PE CTA while those suspected for AAS should still be triaged using TRO protocol.
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.