Observational studySaudi medical journal2017
Acute coronary syndrome risk prediction of rapid emergency medicine scoring system in acute chest pain. An observational study of patients presenting with chest pain in the emergency department in Central Saudi Arabia.
Observational study in Saudi medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exception from informed consent for biomedical research in emergency settings: A study from Jordan.Heliyon · 2021Article
- Combination of magnetic resonance imaging and targeted contrast agent for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2018Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the diagnostic validity of the rapid emergency medical score (REMS) for the risk stratification of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) from non-cardiogenic chest pain. Methods: An observational cross-sectional study was carried out among patients presenting with chest pain to the Emergency Department of Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for 6 months from January to June 2016. All patients, included through non-probability convenience sampling, were assessed using standard protocols for the physiological parameters of the REMS, and ACS was confirmed through electrocardiography, cardiac enzyme testing, and angiography (if needed). Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences software version 15 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA). The validity of REMS was determined using a cutoff value of 17. Results: In total, 176 (70.4%) of patients were men with a mean age of 49±8.5 years. The mean REM score of the patients was 9.3±4.5, and a sensitivity of 81.6%, specificity of 90.05%, positive predictive value of 66.67%, and a negative predictive value of 95.26% were obtained. Conclusion: Rapid emergency medical score is a simple and fairly valid tool that may be used for diagnosis of ACS with limited resources in emergency medicine.
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.