Observational studyCritical pathways in cardiology2016
Utility of the Diamond-Forrester Classification in Stratifying Acute Chest Pain in an Academic Chest Pain Center.
Observational study in Critical pathways in cardiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence-Driven Cost Savings from Emergency Department Chest Pain Patient Evaluation: A Monte Carlo Simulation.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Computed tomography coronary angiography after excluding myocardial infarction: high-sensitivity troponin versus risk score-guided approach.World journal of emergency medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBecause the Diamond-Forrester (DF) model is predictive of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), it is often used to risk stratify acute chest pain patients. We sought to further evaluate the clinical utility of the DF model within a chest pain evaluation center.
methodsConsecutive patients with chest pain and no known CAD or evidence of active ischemia were asked to participate in a prospective registry. Patients were classified based on cardiovascular risk factors, age, and DF classification. We compared data from the emergency department course, Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) and Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), hospitalization rates, and results of testing between patients with typical angina and all others. Multivariate logistic regression was also used to assess for predictors of CAD by computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) or positive exercise treadmill testing (ETT).
resultsAmong 209 patients, 163 had atypical/noncardiac and 46 had typical chest pain. The SAQ and DASI scores were lower in the typical chest pain group (indicating more severe impairment), which were not statistically significantly different. There were no significant differences in risk factors or the results of CTCA, ETT, or cardiac catheterization. In the regression analysis, SAQ score, DASI score, and DF classification were not predictive of CAD by CTCA. Worsening angina frequency scores on the SAQ were marginally associated with positive ETT (OR, 1.04; P=0.04).
conclusionIn a contemporary low-risk acute chest pain population, typical angina, as defined by the DF classification, was not predictive of CAD or useful for identifying patients with higher symptom burden.
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.