Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32147870›Full record

Trial reportAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2020

Shared Decision Making for Syncope in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial.

Marc A Probst, Michelle P Lin, Jeremy J Sze, Erik P Hess, Maggie Breslin, Dominick L Frosch, Benjamin C Sun, Marie-Noelle Langan, Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy, Lynne D Richardson

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. A Team Approach to Patient-Centered Communication in the Emergency Department.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026
    Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Marc A ProbstFrom the, Department of Emergency Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-1503-7178
Michelle P LinFrom the, Department of Emergency Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
Jeremy J SzeFrom the, Department of Emergency Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
Erik P Hessthe, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Maggie Breslinthe, School of Visual Arts, New York, NY.
Dominick L Froschthe, Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
Benjamin C Sunthe, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Marie-Noelle Langanand the, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthyand the, Department of Emergency Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4373-3688
Lynne D RichardsonFrom the, Department of Emergency Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.

Funding

SYNDICARE: Syncope Decision Aid for Emergency CareK23HL132052 · NHLBI · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI PROBST, MARC · 2016 to 2019
$678k
NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL132052
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesSignificant practice variation is seen in the management of syncope in the emergency department (ED). We sought to evaluate the feasibility of performing a randomized controlled trial of a shared decision making (SDM) tool for low-to-intermediate-risk syncope patients presenting to the ED.

methodsWe performed a randomized controlled trial of adults (≥30 years) with unexplained syncope who presented to an academic ED in the United States. Patients with a serious diagnosis identified in the ED were excluded. Patients were randomized, 1:1, to receive either usual care or a personalized syncope decision aid (SynDA) meant to facilitate SDM. Our primary outcome was feasibility, i.e., ability to enroll 50 patients in 24 months. Secondary outcomes included patient knowledge, involvement (measured with OPTION-5), rating of care, and clinical outcomes at 30 days post-ED visit.

resultsAfter screening 351 patients, we enrolled 50 participants with unexplained syncope from January 2017 to January 2019. The most common reason for exclusion was lack of clinical equipoise to justify SDM (n = 124). Patients in the SynDA arm tended to have greater patient involvement, as shown by higher OPTION-5 scores: 52/100 versus 27/100 (between-group difference = -25.4, 95% confidence interval = -13.5 to -37.3). Both groups had similar levels of clinical knowledge, ratings of care, and serious clinical outcomes at 30 days.

conclusionsAmong ED patients with unexplained syncope, a randomized controlled trial of a shared decision-making tool is feasible. Although this study was not powered to detect differences in clinical outcomes, it demonstrates feasibility, while providing key lessons and effect sizes that could inform the design of future SDM trials.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedEmergency Service, HospitalSyncopeAdultAgedCanadaDecision MakingFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID32147870
PMCPMC7483321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.