ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2020
Evaluation of the Manchester triage system for patients with acute coronary syndrome.
Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Manchester Triage System: Effectiveness, Limitations, and Global Implementation-A Structured Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Improving the performance of a triage scale for chest pain patients admitted to emergency departments: combining cardiovascular risk factors and electrocardiogram.BMC emergency medicine · 2022Observational
- Emergency Departments as Care Providers for Patients with Cardiac Ambulatory Care Sensitive and Mental Health Conditions: Qualitative Interview and Focus Group Study with Patients and Physicians.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- E-Triage Systems for COVID-19 Outbreak: Review and Recommendations.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn early diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is crucial for treatment and prognosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the Manchester triage system (MTS) for patients with ACS, e.g. ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (N-STEMI) and unstable angina pectoris (UAP).
methodsRetrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with ACS (STEMI, N‑STEMI and UAP) who were triaged in the emergency department (ED) with the MTS.
resultsIn this study 282 patients with ACS (STEMI: 34.0%, N‑STEMI: 61.7%, UAP: 4.3%) were triaged as MTS level 1 (immediate assessment): 0.4%, MTS level 2 (very urgent): 51.4%, MTS level 3 (urgent): 41.5%, MTS level 4 (standard): 6.7%, MTS level 5 (non-urgent): 0%. We observed significantly lower mean MTS levels in males (male: 2.48 ± 0.59, female: 2.68 ± 0.68, p = 0.02) and in patients younger than 80 years (age <80 years: 2.50 ± 0.61, age ≥80 years: 2.70 ± 0.67, p = 0.03). We did not find a significant difference of mean MTS levels in different types of ACS (STEMI: 2.46 ± 0.6, N‑STEMI: 2.59 ± 0.64, STEMI vs N‑STEMI: p = 0.11, UAP: 2.67 ± 0.65, STEMI vs UAP: p = 0.26) and with respect to diabetes (diabetic: 2.47 ± 0.57, non-diabetic: 2.58 ± 0.65, p = 0.13). The in-hospital mortality was 2.5% (MTS level 2: n = 3, MTS level 3: n = 3, MTS level 4: n = 1).
conclusionThe majority of patients with ACS were classified as MTS levels 2 and 3. There was no significant difference of mean MTS levels in patients with STEMI, NSTEMI and UAP. In order to assure an early diagnosis of STEMI, an electrocardiogram (ECG) should be carried out immediately or at least within 10 min after first medical contact in the ED in all patients suspected for ACS, irrespective of the assigned MTS level.
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.