ArticleCureus2020
HEART Score of Four for Age and Risk Factors: A Case Series.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chest pain is a frequent chief complaint in the ED. Identifying acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and establishing proper disposition for further risk assessment for major adverse cardiac events are paramount. The HEART Score is a key decision-making tool used to determine patient risk and disposition. One scenario with a potential drawback of the HEART Score is found in patients with a score of four based solely on age and risk factors. The HEART Score categorizes a score of three or less as low risk, and patients with scores above this threshold are typically admitted. We present six cases of chest pain presenting to a military emergency department with a score of four based solely on age and risk factors. They represent every such case found in a previously created database used to validate the HEART Score. We followed each case forward one year in electronic medical records to identify major adverse cardiac events. With the exception of one case that was placed on hospice for non-cardiac reasons and subsequently lost to follow up, there were no adverse events. There is a rising concern for increasing hospital admission rates, overuse of resources, and cost. We highlight that this subset of HEART Score patients requires a more nuanced risk stratification in the ED. It may be worth the time and effort to risk stratify this subset with coronary computed tomography angiography. This additional effort may help reduce admission at such a patient's current and future presentations to the ED for chest pain.
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.