ArticleClinical and experimental emergency medicine2019
Multicenter observational study on the reliability of the HEART score.
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 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Natural Language Processing for Risk Stratification of Emergency Department Patients with Chest Pain.CJC open · 2026Article
- [Advances in the application of the HEART score in patients with acute coronary syndromes].Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2026Review
- Evaluating the Efficacy of CPS, HEART and TIMI Score in Emergency Department Patients with Non-Traumatic Chest Pain: A Pilot Study.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Adequately identifying low-risk chest pain in emergency primary care: evaluating the performance of preHEAR(T) based on two European cohorts.Open heart · 2025Article
- Automated computation of the HEART score with the GPT-4 large language model.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- A Closer Look at the HEART Score.Cardiology research · 2022Review
- Interrater agreement of the HEART score history component: A chart review study.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Provider Assessment of Clinical History When Using the HEART Score.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2022Article
- Scoring systems for the triage and assessment of short-term cardiovascular risk in patients with acute chest pain.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo rapidly and safely identify the risk of developing acute coronary syndrome in patients with chest pain who present to the emergency department, the clinical use of the History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin (HEART) scoring has recently been proposed. This study aimed to assess the inter-rater reliability of the HEART score calculated by a large number of Italian emergency physicians.
methodsThe study was conducted in three academic emergency departments using clinical scenarios obtained from medical records of patients with chest pain. Twenty physicians, who took the HEART score course, independently assigned a score to different clinical scenarios, which were randomly administered to the participants, and data were collected and recorded in a spreadsheet by an independent investigator who was blinded to the study's aim.
resultsAfter applying the exclusion criteria, 53 scenarios were finally included in the analysis. The general inter-rater reliability was good (kappa statistics [κ], 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.70), and a good inter-rater agreement for the high- and low-risk classes (HEART score, 7 to 10 and 0 to 3, respectively; κ, 0.60 to 0.73) was observed, whereas a moderate agreement was found for the intermediate-risk class (HEART score, 4 to 6; κ, 0.51). Among the different items of the HEART score, history and electrocardiogram had the worse agreement (κ, 0.37 and 0.42, respectively).
conclusionThe HEART score had good inter-rater reliability, particularly among the high- and low-risk classes. The modest agreement for history suggests that major improvements are needed for objectively assessing this component.
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.