ReviewBioMed research international2018
Old and New NICE Guidelines for the Evaluation of New Onset Stable Chest Pain: A Real World Perspective.
Review in BioMed research international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integration of CTA in the Diagnostic Workup of New Onset Chest Pain in Clinical Practice.BioMed research international · 2019Trial
- Imaging approaches in risk stratification of patients with coronary artery disease: a narrative review.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2025Article
- The Role of Non-Invasive Multimodality Imaging in Chronic Coronary Syndrome: Anatomical and Functional Pathways.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Heart Rate-Dependent Degree of Motion Artifacts in Coronary CT Angiography Acquired by a Novel Purpose-Built Cardiac CT Scanner.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Stress CMR in Known or Suspected CAD: Diagnostic and Prognostic Role.BioMed research international · 2021Review
- Speckle Tracking Echocardiography: Early Predictor of Diagnosis and Prognosis in Coronary Artery Disease.BioMed research international · 2021Review
- SCOT-HEART trial: reshuffling our approach to stable ischemic heart disease.The British journal of radiology · 2020Article
- Debates over NICE Guideline Update: What Are the Roles of Nuclear Cardiology in the Initial Evaluation of Stable Chest Pain?Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019Review
- Non-invasive Risk Stratification for Coronary Artery Disease: Is It Time for Subclassifications?Current cardiology reports · 2019Review
- Corrigendum to "Old and New NICE Guidelines for the Evaluation of New Onset Stable Chest Pain: A Real World Perspective".BioMed research international · 2019Article
- [Should I treat a high-risk chronic coronary syndrome in an invasive way from the beginning? No, in most cases].Archivos peruanos de cardiologia y cirugia cardiovascularArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stable chest pain is a common clinical presentation that often requires further investigation using noninvasive or invasive testing, resulting in a resource-consuming problem worldwide. At onset of 2016, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published an update on its guideline on chest pain. Three key changes to the 2010 version were provided by the new NICE guideline. First, the new guideline recommends that the previously proposed pretest probability risk score should no longer be used. Second, they also recommend that a calcium score of zero should no longer be used to rule out coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with low pretest probability. Third, the new guideline recommends that all patients with new onset chest pain should be investigated with a coronary computed tomographic angiography (CTA) as a first-line investigation. However, in real world the impact of implementation of CTA for the evaluation of new onset chest pain remains to be evaluated, especially regarding its cost effectiveness. The aim of the present report was to discuss the results of the studies supporting new NICE guideline and its comparison with European and US guidelines.
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.