ArticleJournal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences2016
Comparison of different risk stratification systems in predicting short-term serious outcome of syncope patients.
Article in Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Outcomes in syncope research: a systematic review and critical appraisal.Internal and emergency medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Application of five risk stratification tools for syncope in older adults.The Journal of international medical research · 2024Article
- Risk stratification tools for patients with syncope in emergency medical services and emergency departments: a scoping review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Predicting short-term adverse outcomes in the geriatric population presenting with syncope: a comparison of existing syncope rules and beyond.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2023Article
- The Veracity of Troponin Test Requests for Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department with Chest Pain; a Clinical Audit.Advanced journal of emergency medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDetermining etiologic causes and prognosis can significantly improve management of syncope patients. The present study aimed to compare the values of San Francisco, Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope nel Lazio (OESIL), Boston, and Risk Stratification of Syncope in the Emergency Department (ROSE) score clinical decision rules in predicting the short-term serious outcome of syncope patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe present diagnostic accuracy study with 1-week follow-up was designed to evaluate the predictive values of the four mentioned clinical decision rules. Screening performance characteristics of each model in predicting mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and cerebrovascular accidents (CVAs) were calculated and compared. To evaluate the value of each aforementioned model in predicting the outcome, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio were calculated and receiver-operating curve (ROC) curve analysis was done.
resultsA total of 187 patients (mean age: 64.2 ± 17.2 years) were enrolled in the study. Mortality, MI, and CVA were seen in 19 (10.2%), 12 (6.4%), and 36 (19.2%) patients, respectively. Area under the ROC curve for OESIL, San Francisco, Boston, and ROSE models in prediction the risk of 1-week mortality, MI, and CVA was in the 30-70% range, with no significant difference among models (
conclusionThis study revealed the weakness of all four evaluated models in predicting short-term serious outcome of syncope patients referred to the emergency department without any significant advantage for one among others.
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.