ReviewOpen access emergency medicine : OAEM2015
Clinical decision aids for chest pain in the emergency department: identifying low-risk patients.
Review in Open access emergency medicine : OAEM, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reducing Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Usage as Interfacility Transport for Patients Presenting with Chest Pain.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Computerized Self-Reported Medical History Taking to Support Early Rule Out of Major Adverse Cardiac Events in Patients With Acute Chest Pain: Post Hoc Analysis of the CLEOS-CPDS Prospective Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Observational
- Chest Pain Risk Stratification in the Emergency Department: Current Perspectives.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2024Review
- The ethical dilemma of emergency department patients with low-risk chest pain.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2021Article
- Article
- Observational
- Does an imaging stress-test adds information to prognostic scores in patients with chest pain in the emergency department?Internal and emergency medicine · 2019Article
- Comparison of nine coronary risk scores in evaluating patients presenting to hospital with undifferentiated chest pain.International journal of general medicine · 2018Article
- Acute chest pain after bench press exercise in a healthy young adult.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2016Article
- Lethal means counseling for suicide prevention: Views of emergency department clinicians.General hospital psychiatryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chest pain is one of the most common presenting complaints in the emergency department, though only a small minority of patients are subsequently diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, missing the diagnosis has potential for significant morbidity and mortality. ACS presentations can be atypical, and their workups are often prolonged and costly. In order to risk-stratify patients and better direct the workup and care given, many decision aids have been developed. While each may have merit in certain clinical settings, the most useful aid in the emergency department is one that finds all cases of ACS while also identifying a substantial subset of patients at low risk who can be discharged without stress testing or coronary angiography. This review describes several of the chest pain decision aids developed and studied through the recent past, starting with the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) risk score and Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) scores, which were developed as prognostic aids for patients already diagnosed with ACS, then subsequently validated in the undifferentiated chest pain population. Asia-Pacific Evaluation of Chest Pain Trial (ASPECT); Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol to Assess Patients With Chest Pain Symptoms Using Contemporary Troponins (ADAPT); North American Chest Pain Rule (NACPR); and History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, Troponin (HEART) score have been developed exclusively for use in the undifferentiated chest pain population as well, with improved performance compared to their predecessors. This review describes the relative merits and limitations of these decision aids so that providers can determine which tool fits the needs of their clinical practice setting.
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.