Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29061617›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2017

Secondary analysis of frequency, circumstances and consequences of calculation errors of the HEART (history, ECG, age, risk factors and troponin) score at the emergency departments of nine hospitals in the Netherlands.

Marten Ras, Johannes B Reitsma, Arno W Hoes, Alfred Jacob Six, Judith M Poldervaart

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [Advances in the application of the HEART score in patients with acute coronary syndromes].Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2026
    Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Prehospital risk stratification in patients with chest pain.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marten RasFaculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Johannes B ReitsmaJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Arno W HoesJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Alfred Jacob SixDepartment of Cardiology, Zuwe Hofpoort Hospital, Woerden, The Netherlands.
Judith M PoldervaartJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe HEART score can accurately stratify the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients with chest pain. We investigated the frequency, circumstances and potential consequences of errors in its calculation.

methodsWe performed a secondary analysis of a stepped wedge trial of patients with chest pain presenting to nine Dutch emergency departments. We recalculated HEART scores for all patients by re-evaluating the elements age (A), risk factors (R) and troponin (T) and compared these new scores with those given by physicians in daily practice. We investigated which circumstances increased the probability of incorrect scoring and explored the potential consequences.

resultsThe HEART score was incorrectly scored in 266 out of 1752 patients (15.2%; 95% CI 13.5% to 16.9%). Most errors occurred in the R ('Risk factors') element (61%). Time of admission, and patient's age or gender did not contribute to errors, but more errors were made in patients with higher scores. In 102 patients (5.8%, 95% CI 4.7% to 6.9%) the incorrect HEART score resulted in incorrect risk categorisation (too low or too high). Patients with an incorrectly calculated HEART score had a higher risk of MACE (OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.50), which was largely related to more errors being made in patients with higher HEART scores.

conclusionsOur results show that the HEART score was incorrectly calculated in 15% of patients, leading to inappropriate risk categorisation in 5.8% which may have led to suboptimal clinical decision-making and management. Actions should be taken to improve the score's use in daily practice.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalAgedCardiovascular DiseasesChest PainDiagnosis, DifferentialDiagnostic ErrorsElectrocardiographyFemaleHospitalsHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentTroponin Tcoronary heart diseaseischaemic heart diseasemyocardial infarctionquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID29061617
PMCPMC5665257
OpenAlexW2765432117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.