ArticleClinical and experimental emergency medicine2019
Electrocardiogram and cardiac testing among patients in the emergency department with seizure versus syncope.
Article in Clinical and experimental 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.
- Classification Model for Epileptic Seizure Using Simple Postictal Laboratory Indices.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Retrospective Diagnosis of Congenital Long QT Syndrome in a Patient With Febrile Syncope.Journal of emergency nursing · 2020Article
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
objectiveCardiogenic syncope can present as a seizure. The distinction between seizure disorder and cardiogenic syncope can only be made if one considers the diagnosis. Our main objective was to identify whether patients presenting with a chief complaint (reason for visit) as seizure or syncope received an electrocardiogram in the emergency department across all age groups.
methodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of data collected in the 2010 to 2014 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey comparing patients presenting with a chief complaint of syncope versus seizure to determine likelihood of getting an evaluation for possible life threatening cardiovascular disease. The primary endpoint was receiving an electrocardiogram in the emergency department; secondary endpoint was receiving cardiac biomarkers.
resultsThere was a total of 144,094 patient encounters. Of these visits, 1,553 had syncope and 1,470 had seizure (60.3% vs. 44.2% female, 19.9% vs. 29.0% non-white). After adjusting for age, sex, mode of arrival and insurance, patients with syncope were more likely to receive an electrocardiogram compared to patients with seizure (odds ratio, 10.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.52 to 13.84). This was true across all age groups (0 to 18 years, 56% vs. 7.5%; 18 to 44 years, 60% vs. 27%; 45 to 64 years, 82% vs. 41%; ≥65 years, 85% vs. 68%; P<0.01 for all). Car- diac biomarkers were also obtained more frequently in adult patients with syncope patients (18 to 44 years, 17.5% vs. 10.5%; 45 to 64 years, 33.8% vs. 21.4%; ≥65 years, 47.1% vs. 32.3%; P<0.01 for all).
conclusionPatients evaluated in the emergency department for syncope received an electrocar- diogram and cardiac biomarkers more frequently than those that had seizure.
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.