SynthesisInternal and emergency medicine2018
Outcomes in syncope research: a systematic review and critical appraisal.
Synthesis in Internal and emergency medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Syncope Time Frames for Adverse Events after Emergency Department Presentation: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Pooled it
- Will Artificial Intelligence Be "Better" Than Humans in the Management of Syncope?JACC. Advances · 2024Review
- Developing Implementation Strategies to Support the Uptake of a Risk Tool to Aid Physicians in the Clinical Management of Patients With Syncope: Systematic Theoretical and User-Centered Design Approach.JMIR human factors · 2023Article
- Cardiac and Vascular Causes of Syncope and Atherosclerosis.Current cardiology reports · 2022Review
- It is all in rhythm. Would Shakespeare's masterpieces have existed if atrial fibrillation had been the poet's dominant rhythm?Internal and emergency medicine · 2020Article
- Prognosis of Syncope With Head Injury: a Tertiary Center Perspective.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2020Article
- Article
- Outcomes in syncope research: it is time to standardize.Internal and emergency medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
13 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Syncope is the common clinical manifestation of different diseases, and this makes it difficult to define what outcomes should be considered in prognostic studies. The aim of this study is to critically analyze the outcomes considered in syncope studies through systematic review and expert consensus. We performed a systematic review of the literature to identify prospective studies enrolling consecutive patients presenting to the Emergency Department with syncope, with data on the characteristics and incidence of short-term outcomes. Then, the strengths and weaknesses of each outcome were discussed by international syncope experts to provide practical advice to improve future selection and assessment. 31 studies met our inclusion criteria. There is a high heterogeneity in both outcome choice and incidence between the included studies. The most commonly considered 7-day outcomes are mortality, dysrhythmias, myocardial infarction, stroke, and rehospitalisation. The most commonly considered 30-day outcomes are mortality, haemorrhage requiring blood transfusion, dysrhythmias, myocardial infarction, pacemaker or implantable defibrillator implantation, stroke, pulmonary embolism, and syncope relapse. We present a critical analysis of the pros and cons of the commonly considered outcomes, and provide possible solutions to improve their choice in ED syncope studies. We also support global initiatives to promote the standardization of patient management and data collection.
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.