Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27919865›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2016

Shared decision making in patients with low risk chest pain: prospective randomized pragmatic trial.

Erik P Hess, Judd E Hollander, Jason T Schaffer, Jeffrey A Kline, Carlos A Torres, Deborah B Diercks, Russell Jones, Kelly P Owen, Zachary F Meisel, Michel Demers and 6 more

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 64 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT01969240 nacompletednot on this map

Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: The Chest Pain Choice Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorMayo ClinicRan2013 to 2015Enrolled898ConditionsChest Pain, Acute Coronary SyndromeArmsChest Pain Choice Decision Aid
NCT04749147 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Color Priming and Patient Decision-Making in the Emergency Department: Priming "Threat" in Patients With Low-Risk Chest Pain

TypeinterventionalSponsorCHRISTUS HealthRan2019 to 2022Enrolled62ConditionsChest Pain, Cardiac EventArmsBlack and White Printed Survey, Red Printed Survey
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

64 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Shared Decision Making for Syncope in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2020
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. A Team Approach to Patient-Centered Communication in the Emergency Department.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Erik P HessDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55906, USA hess.erik@mayo.edu.
Judd E HollanderDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jason T SchafferDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Jeffrey A KlineDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Carlos A TorresDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Deborah B DiercksDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Russell JonesDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Kelly P OwenDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Zachary F MeiselDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Michel DemersRochester, MN, USA.
Annie LeblancKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Nilay D ShahDivision of Health Care Policy and Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Jonathan InselmanMayo Clinic Robert D and Patricia E Kern Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery, Rochester, MN, USA.
Jeph HerrinHealth Research & Educational Trust, Chicago IL, USA.
Ana Castaneda-GuarderasDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55906, USA.
Victor M MontoriKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of shared decision making with usual care in choice of admission for observation and further cardiac testing or for referral for outpatient evaluation in patients with possible acute coronary syndrome.

designMulticenter pragmatic parallel randomized controlled trial.

settingSix emergency departments in the United States.

participants898 adults (aged >17 years) with a primary complaint of chest pain who were being considered for admission to an observation unit for cardiac testing (451 were allocated to the decision aid and 447 to usual care), and 361 emergency clinicians (emergency physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) caring for patients with chest pain.

interventionsPatients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an electronic, web based system to shared decision making facilitated by a decision aid or to usual care. The primary outcome, selected by patient and caregiver advisers, was patient knowledge of their risk for acute coronary syndrome and options for care; secondary outcomes were involvement in the decision to be admitted, proportion of patients admitted for cardiac testing, and the 30 day rate of major adverse cardiac events.

resultsCompared with the usual care arm, patients in the decision aid arm had greater knowledge of their risk for acute coronary syndrome and options for care (questions correct: decision aid, 4.2 v usual care, 3.6; mean difference 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.86), were more involved in the decision (observing patient involvement scores: decision aid, 18.3 v usual care, 7.9; 10.3, 9.1 to 11.5), and less frequently decided with their clinician to be admitted for cardiac testing (decision aid, 37% v usual care, 52%; absolute difference 15%; P<0.001). There were no major adverse cardiac events due to the intervention.

conclusionsUse of a decision aid in patients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome increased patient knowledge about their risk, increased engagement, and safely decreased the rate of admission to an observation unit for cardiac testing.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01969240.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareDecision MakingDecision Support TechniquesHospitalizationAcute Coronary SyndromeAdultAftercareAttitude of Health PersonnelChest PainChoice BehaviorConflict, PsychologicalEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHospital UnitsHumans

Identifiers

PMID27919865
PMCPMC5152707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.