ReviewDeutsches Arzteblatt international2015
The Interdisciplinary Management of Acute Chest Pain.
Review in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effective management of pulmonary embolism after initial diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome: a case report highlighting differential diagnosis challenges.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Mondor's Disease: A Rare Cause of Chest Pain.European journal of case reports in internal medicine · 2020Article
- Gastric perforation through a hiatus hernia into the left lung in an 84-year-old woman.BMJ case reports · 2019Article
- Diagnostic Agreement between Prehospital Emergency and In-Hospital Physicians.Emergency medicine international · 2019Article
- Non-Cardiac Chest Pain.Visceral medicine · 2018Review
- [Diagnostic investigation in emergency medicine: Why case history is crucial].Der Anaesthesist · 2017Article
- [Gastroenterological diseases as triggers of chest pain].Der Internist · 2017Article
- The Differential Diagnosis of Dyspnea.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2016Review
- Additional Support Necessary.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2016Article
- In Reply.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2016Article
- Dangerous Statements.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute chest pain of non-traumatic origin is a common reason for presentation to physician's offices and emergency rooms. Coronary heart disease is the cause in up to 25% of cases. Because acute chest pain, depending on its etiology, may be associated with a high risk of death, rapid, goal-oriented management is mandatory.
methodsThis review is based on pertinent articles and guidelines retrieved by a selective search in PubMed.
resultsHistory-taking, physical examination, and a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) are the first steps in the differential diagnostic process and generally allow the identification of features signifying a high risk of lifethreatening illness. If the ECG reveals ST-segment elevation, cardiac catheterization is indicated. The timedependent measurement of highly sensitive troponin values is a reliable test for the diagnosis or exclusion of acute myocardial infarction. A wide variety of other potential causes (e.g., vascular, musculoskeletal, gastroenterologic, or psychosomatic) must be identified from the history if they are to be treated appropriately. Elderly patients need special attention.
conclusionAcute chest pain is a major diagnostic challenge for the physician. Common errors are traceable to non-recognition of important causes and to an inadequate diagnostic work-up. Future studies should be designed to help optimize the interdisciplinary management of patients with chest pain.
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.