ArticleIrish journal of medical science2017
Appropriate pathology ordering? Troponin testing within an Australian Emergency Department.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Appropriateness of troponin testing in emergency department at a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia.Saudi medical journal · 2022Article
- Article
- Identification of very low-risk acute chest pain patients without troponin testing.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2020Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiac Troponin I and Troponin T are both very sensitive and specific, with the troponin pathology test recommended for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction. The diagnosis of myocardial infarction, in conjunction with electrocardiogram myocardial infarction, is based on a rise or fall of troponin with at least one value above the 99th percentile for the population. Troponin levels are regularly ordered within hospitals, especially in emergency medicine. It has been suggested that much of this testing is ordered despite the absence of clinical suspicion for acute coronary syndrome.
aimThis study examined the appropriateness of troponin testing within one Australian teaching hospital.
methodsA retrospective chart review was conducted of 111 randomly selected patients who received a troponin assay within the hospital's Emergency Department. To determine appropriateness, the troponin test needed to reflect Australian clinical guidelines, and inform the ongoing management of the patient.
resultsResults demonstrate that the majority (76.6 %) of troponin testing was appropriate, with the remainder (23.4 %) deemed inappropriate due to not altering the ongoing patient management (n = 26), and not being informed by clinical guidelines (n = 26).
conclusionTroponin testing is important in the diagnosis of myocardial infarction, although should not be ordered routinely, or unnecessary. This study has determined that using clinical guidelines can promote rational ordering, and that testing should ultimately benefit patient management. Reducing inappropriate pathology test ordering is important to maximize productive clinical time, reduce false positives, maximize patient care, and to reduce financial waste.
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.