ArticleJRSM open2015
Pre-test probability risk scores and their use in contemporary management of patients with chest pain: One year stress echo cohort study.
Article in JRSM open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare how patients with chest pain would be investigated, based on the two guidelines available for UK cardiologists, on the management of patients with stable chest pain. The UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guideline which was published in 2010 and the European society of cardiology (ESC) guideline published in 2013. Both guidelines utilise pre-test probability risk scores, to guide the choice of investigation.
designWe undertook a large retrospective study to investigate the outcomes of stress echocardiography.
settingA large tertiary centre in the UK in a contemporary clinical practice.
participantsTwo thirds of the patients in the cohort were referred from our rapid access chest pain clinics.
resultsWe found that the NICE risk score overestimates risk by 20% compared to the ESC Risk score. We also found that based on the NICE guidelines, 44% of the patients presenting with chest pain, in this cohort, would have been investigated invasively, with diagnostic coronary angiography. Using the ESC guidelines, only 0.3% of the patients would be investigated invasively.
conclusionThe large discrepancy between the two guidelines can be easily reduced if NICE adopted the ESC risk score.
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.