ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2017
The 2016 update to NICE CG95 guideline for the -investigation of new onset stable chest pain: more -innovation, but at a cost?
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in contemporary guidelines: divergence between ESC and NICE across major cardiovascular diseases.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2026Review
- GAP-CP: Gender, Age, and Presentation in Chest Pain.Cureus · 2025Article
- Preoperative investigation practices for elective surgical patients: clinical audit.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Article
- The Added Value of a High CT Coronary Artery Calcium Score in the Management of Patients Presenting with Acute Chest Pain vs. Stable Chest Pain.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2022Article
- Article
- Radiological outpatient' visits to avoid inappropriate cardiac CT examinations: an 8-year experience report.La Radiologia medica · 2021Observational
- Noninvasive Testing for Diagnosis of Stable Coronary Artery Disease in the Elderly.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Versus Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography for Detecting Coronary Artery Disease and Myocardial Ischemia: Comparison with Coronary Angiography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Old and New NICE Guidelines for the Evaluation of New Onset Stable Chest Pain: A Real World Perspective.BioMed research international · 2018Review
- Targeting limited NHS resources to affect optimal care.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published an update on its guideline on chest pain of recent onset in 2016. The new guideline makes three key changes to the 2010 version. NICE recommend that the previously proposed pre-test probability risk score should no longer be used. They also recommend that a calcium score of zero should no longer be used to rule out coronary artery disease in patients with low pre-test probability. However, the most radical change is that NICE now recommend that all patients with new onset chest pain should be investigated with a computerised tomography coronary angiogram as a first-ine investigation. We discuss the recent trial evidence that has informed the NICE update and consider the impact of the new guidelines.
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.