ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2019
Does an imaging stress-test adds information to prognostic scores in patients with chest pain in the emergency department?
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2019. 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.
- Use of downstream stress imaging tests for risk stratification of patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain and low HEART score.Open heart · 2024Article
- Using HEART2 score to risk stratify chest pain patients in the Emergency Department: an observational study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated the ability of a stress-test (Str-T) to improve the risk stratification based on prognostic scores in patients presenting to the ED with chest pain. Between 2008, June and 2013, December, 1082 patients with chest pain were evaluated with an imaging Str-T. With a retrospective analysis, patients were stratified according to: (1) Florence Prediction Rule as low (0-1, LR-FPR), intermediate (2-4, IR-FPR), high risk (5-6, HR-FPR), respectively, 26, 50 and 24% of patients; (2) HEART score as LR-HEART, (0-3) and HR-HEART (≥4), respectively, 36 and 64%; (3) likelihood of CAD according to NICE guidelines, 10-29% LR-NICE, 30-60% IR-NICE and > 60% HR-NICE, respectively, 12, 18 and 70%. Scores' diagnostic performance was calculated with Str-T as reference. One-month follow-up by a phone call was performed, to investigate the occurrence of new cardiovascular events. In LR and HR patients, FPR and NICE score showed sensitivity 66 vs 93%, specificity 59 vs 19% (both p < 0.001), Positive Predictive Value (PPV) 36 vs 31%, Negative Predictive Value (NPV) 83 vs 87%. Among LR-HEART patients, Str-T was positive for inducible ischemia in 53 (14%) patients and 12 (4%) of them underwent a percutaneous coronary revascularization. The Str-T was negative for inducible ischemia in 760 (70%) patients, positive in 272 (25%), inconclusive in 50 (5%); among patients in the LR and IR subgroups, incidence of CAD (1.3 and 1.6%) and the cumulative incidence of significant events at 1-month follow-up (both 1%) was very low Str-T improved prognostic scores' diagnostic performance in LR- and HR-subgroups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29845517What 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.