ArticleAdvanced emergency nursing journal
The Value of Continuous ST-Segment Monitoring in the Emergency Department.
Article in Advanced emergency nursing journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of Implementation of Practice Standards for Electrocardiographic Monitoring With Nurses' Knowledge, Quality of Care, and Patient Outcomes: Findings From the Practical Use of the Latest Standards of Electrocardiography (PULSE) Trial.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2017Trial
- Artificial Intelligence for Myocardial Infarction Detection via Electrocardiogram: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Cardiac Monitoring in the Emergency Department.Critical care nursing clinics of North America · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Practice standards for electrocardiographic monitoring recommend continuous ST-segment monitoring (C-STM) in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with signs and/or symptoms of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but few studies have evaluated its use in the ED. We compared time to diagnosis and 30-day adverse events before and after implementation of C-STM. We also evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of C-STM in detecting ischemia and infarction. We prospectively studied 163 adults (preintervention: n = 78; intervention: n = 85) in a single ED and stratified them into low (n = 51), intermediate (n = 100), or high (n = 12) risk using History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, and Troponin (HEART) scores. The principal investigator monitored participants, activating C-STM on bedside monitors in the intervention phase. We used likelihood ratios (LRs) as the measure of diagnostic accuracy. Overall, 9% of participants were diagnosed with ACS. Median time to diagnosis did not differ before and after implementation of C-STM (5.55 vs. 5.98 hr; p = 0.43). In risk-stratified analyses, no significant pre-/postdifference in time to diagnosis was found in low-, intermediate-, or high-risk participants. There was no difference in the rate of 30-day adverse events before versus after C-STM implementation (11.5% vs. 10.6%; p = 0.85). The +LR and -LR of C-STM for ischemia were 24.0 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4, 412.0) and 0.3 (95% CI: 0.02, 2.9), respectively, and for infarction were 13.7 (95% CI: 1.7, 112.3) and 0.7 (95% CI: 0.3, 1.5), respectively. Use of C-STM did not provide added diagnostic benefit for patients with signs and/or symptoms of myocardial ischemia in the 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.