ReviewEmergency (Tehran, Iran)2018
Value of Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes Decision Rule in the Detection of Acute Coronary Syndrome; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Emergency (Tehran, Iran), 2018. 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.
- Prognostic Value of The Leuko-Glycemic Index in Acute Myocardial Infarction; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2023Review
- HEART versus GRACE Score in Predicting the Outcomes of Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is still no consensus on the value of Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule in detecting acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Therefore, the purpose of the present systematic review and meta-analyzes is to summarize the clinical evidence in the evaluation of the value of MACS in the diagnosis of ACS.
methodsA literature search was performed on the Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Outcomes included acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and major adverse cardiac event (MACE). Data were analyzed in the STATA 14.0 statistical program and the results were reported as summary receiver operating characteristics (SROC), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (95% CI).
resultsFinally, 8 articles included in the meta-analysis. The area under the SROC of MACS was excellent in rule out of AMI (AUC = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.97 to 0.99) and MACE (AUC = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95 to 0.98). The sensitivity and specificity of the troponin-only MACS/history electrocardiogram alone MACS (HE-MACS) in the rule out of AMI were0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-0.99) and 0.22 (95% CI: 0.11-0.37), respectively, and for the original MACS were in order 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-0.99) and 0.26 (95% CI: 0.20-0.34),. The sensitivity and specificity of the troponin-only MACS / HE-MACS in the rule out of MACE were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96) and 0.22 (95% CI: 0.12-0.39) compared to the 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-0.99) and 0.27 (95% CI: 0.22-0.33) for the original MACS.
conclusionThe findings of this study showed that original MACS, troponin-only MACS, and HE-MACS are able to rule out AMI and MACE. However, further studies are needed in developing countries to confirm its external validity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30788388PMC6368935What 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.