Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29349639›Full record

SynthesisInternal and emergency medicine2018

Outcomes in syncope research: a systematic review and critical appraisal.

Monica Solbiati, Viviana Bozzano, Franca Barbic, Giovanni Casazza, Franca Dipaola, James V Quinn, Matthew J Reed, Robert S Sheldon, Win-Kuang Shen, Benjamin C Sun and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Outcomes in syncope research: it is time to standardize.Internal and emergency medicine · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.

Monica SolbiatiDipartimento di Medicina Interna, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Via Francesco Sforza 35, 20122, Milan, Italy. monica.solbiati@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1964-3770
Viviana BozzanoUniversità degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Franca BarbicDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University-Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy.
Giovanni CasazzaDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche e Cliniche "L. Sacco", Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Franca DipaolaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University-Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy.
James V QuinnDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Matthew J ReedEmergency Medicine Research Group Edinburgh, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Robert S SheldonDepartment of Cardiac Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Win-Kuang ShenDepartment of Cardiology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Benjamin C SunCenter for Policy Research-Emergency Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Venkatesh ThiruganasambandamoorthyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Raffaello FurlanDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University-Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy.
Giorgio CostantinoDipartimento di Medicina Interna, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Via Francesco Sforza 35, 20122, Milan, Italy.
Humanitas University · ITUniversity of Milan · ITEdinburgh Royal Infirmary · GBFondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico · ITMayo Clinic Hospital · USOregon Health & Science University · USStanford University · USUniversity of Calgary · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

IncidencePrognosisEmergency Service, HospitalHumansResearch DesignRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSyncopeConsensusEmergency DepartmentOutcomesRisk stratificationSyncopeSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29349639
OpenAlexW2788430323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.