SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2016
Clinical assessment of patients with chest pain; a systematic review of predictive tools.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Vascular medicine in the 21World journal of clinical cases · 2024Review
- Incidental findings of acute myocardial infarction detected during ECG-gated and nongated thoracic CTA: A report of four cases.Radiology case reports · 2023Article
- Focused Chest Pain Assessment for Early Detection of Acute Coronary Syndrome: Development of a Cardiovascular Digital Health Intervention.Global heart · 2023Article
- Predictors of long-term symptom burden and quality of life in patients hospitalised with chest pain: a prospective observational study.BMJ open · 2022Observational
- Evaluation and comparison of six GRACE models for the stratification of undifferentiated chest pain in the emergency department.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2020Observational
- Enhanced triage for patients with suspected cardiac chest pain: the History and Electrocardiogram-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes decision aid.European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine · 2019Article
- Association of Search Engine Queries for Chest Pain With Coronary Heart Disease Epidemiology.JAMA cardiology · 2018Article
- Managing chest pain patients in general practice: an interview-based study.BMC family practice · 2018Article
- New NICE guidelines for the management of stable angina.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018Article
- Chest Pain Patients at Veterans Hospitals Are Increasingly More Likely to Be Observed Than Admitted for Short Stays.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing · 2016Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical assessment of patients with chest pain of recent onset remains difficult. This study presents a critical review of clinical predictive tools for the assessment of patients with chest pain.
methodsSystematic review of observational studies and estimation of probabilities of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with chest pain. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify studies reporting tools, with at least three variables from clinical history, physical examination or ECG, produced with multivariate analysis, to estimate probabilities of CAD in patients with chest pain of recent onset, published from inception of the database to the 31st July 2015. The references of previous relevant reviews were hand searched. The methodological quality was assessed with standard criteria. Since the incidence of CAD has changed in the past few decades, the date of publication was acknowledged to be relevant in order to use the tool in clinical practice, and more recent papers were considered more relevant. Probabilities of CAD according to the studies of highest quality were estimated and the evidence provided was graded.
resultsTwelve papers were included out of the 19126 references initially identified. The methodological quality of all of them was high. The clinical characteristics of the chest pain, age, past medical history of cardiovascular disease, gender, and abnormalities in the ECG were the predictors of CAD most commonly reported across the studies. The most recent papers, with highest methodological quality, and most practical for use in clinical settings, reported prediction or exclusion of CAD with area under the curve 0.90 in Primary Care, 0.91 in Emergency department, and 0.79 in Cardiology. These papers provide evidence of high level (1B) and the recommendation to use their results in the management of patients with chest pain is strong (A).
conclusionsThe risk of CAD can be estimated on clinical grounds in patients with chest pain in different clinical settings with high accuracy. The estimation of probabilities of CAD presented in these studies could be used for a better management of patients with chest pain and also in the development of future predictive tools.
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.