ReviewHerz2021
German chest pain unit registry: data review after the first decade of certification.
Review in Herz, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Scalable regionalised quality improvement model for ACS management in resource-limited primary healthcare facilities.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2026Article
- Chest pain unit implementation in a multidisciplinary hospital: a retrospective observational study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Challenges and solutions in determining urolithiasis caseloads using the digital infrastructure of a clinical data warehouse.PloS one · 2026Article
- Temporal trends in mortality due to coronary heart disease in Germany from 1998 to 2023.Journal of health monitoring · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- [Gender perspective in the care experience and in the results of patients who consult for chest pain in an emergency department].Archivos de cardiologia de Mexico · 2024Observational
- Article
- Unexpected high level of severe events even in low-risk profile chest pain unit patients.Herz · 2022Observational
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2008, the German Cardiac Society (GCS) introduced a certification program for specialized chest pain units (CPUs). In order to benchmark the performance of the certified CPUs, a nationwide German CPU registry was established. Since then, data for more than 34,000 patients have been included. The concept of certified CPUs in Germany has been widely accepted and its success is underlined by its recent inclusion in national and international guidelines. As of December 2019, 286 CPUs have been successfully certified or recertified by the GCS. This review focuses on the data retrieved from the CPU registry during the first decade of certification. As demonstrated by 16 manuscripts stemming from the registry, certified German CPUs demonstrate high quality of care in acute coronary syndrome and beyond. It is also noted that the German CPU registry allowed for further analysis of the gap in guideline adherence. With the current update of the CPU certification criteria, central data collection as a best-practice criterion will be abandoned, and after some productive years the registry has temporarily been stopped.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32232516What 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.