ReviewCirculation2016
State-of-the-Art Evaluation of Emergency Department Patients Presenting With Potential Acute Coronary Syndromes.
Review in Circulation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 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
42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection: Current State of the Science: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation · 2018Guideline
- Health Care Resource Utilization for Patients With Suspected Myocardial Infarction: A Secondary Analysis of the RACE-IT Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Use of the HEART Pathway with high sensitivity cardiac troponins: A secondary analysis.Clinical biochemistry · 2017Trial
- A leap into the future: excluding the ischaemic origin of chest pain through artificial intelligence.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Multiple biomarkers risk score for accurately predicting the long-term prognosis of patients with acute coronary syndrome.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2025Article
- Validation for the Diagnostic Use of the HEART Score in Patients With Acute Chest Pain in Japan.Circulation reports · 2025Article
- Prognostic Accuracy of the HEART Score in Predicting Major Adverse Cardiac Events: A Prospective Observational Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- Coronary CT Angiography in the Emergency Department: State of the Art and Future Perspectives.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- High-Sensitivity Troponin: Finding a Meaningful Delta.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
- To Be, or Not to Be … Pectoral Angina? The Pain Is the Same, but the Etiology Is Different-A Case Report.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Sex differences in the management of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome in China.Internal and emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Troponin in early presenters to rule out myocardial infarction.European heart journal · 2023Article
- Machine learning for diagnosis of myocardial infarction using cardiac troponin concentrations.Nature medicine · 2023Article
- Focused Chest Pain Assessment for Early Detection of Acute Coronary Syndrome: Development of a Cardiovascular Digital Health Intervention.Global heart · 2023Article
- Identification of Coronary Culprit Lesion in ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction by Using Deep Learning.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2023Article
- SVEAT score outperforms HEART score in patients admitted to a chest pain observation unit.World journal of cardiology · 2022Article
- A Case of Acute Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Later Revealed by Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography.The American journal of case reports · 2022Article
- A Case of Elevated Troponin I Level After Packed Red Blood Cell Transfusion With Normal Coronary Angiography.Cureus · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is well established that clinicians cannot use clinical judgment alone to determine whether an individual patient who presents to the emergency department has an acute coronary syndrome. The history and physical examination do not distinguish sufficiently between the many conditions that can cause acute chest pain syndromes. Cardiac risk factors do not have sufficient discriminatory ability in symptomatic patients presenting to the emergency department. Most patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction do not present with electrocardiographic evidence of active ischemia. The improvement in cardiac troponin assays, especially in conjunction with well-validated clinical decision algorithms, now enables the clinician to rapidly exclude myocardial infarction. In patients in whom unstable angina remains a concern or there is a desire to evaluate for underlying coronary artery disease, coronary computed tomography angiography can be used in the emergency department. Once a process that took ≥24 hours, computed tomography angiography now can rapidly exclude myocardial infarction and coronary artery disease in patients in the emergency department.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27528647What 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.