ArticleJournal of acute medicine2018
The Impact of Pregnancy on the Evaluation of Chest Pain and Shortness of Breath in the Emergency Department.
Article in Journal of acute medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Type A Aortic Dissection in a Previously Healthy Pregnant Patient: A Challenging Dilemma, Case Report, and Literature Review.Case reports in cardiology · 2024Article
- The approach to chest pain during pregnancy.JRSM cardiovascular diseaseReview
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
backgroundPregnant patients are at an increased risk for severe morbidity and mortality when compared to the general population. Imaging studies have become an integral part of the work-up for patients who present to the emergency department. However, lack of clear guideline has led to confusion regarding the appropriate indications and protocols for examining pregnant patients.
objectiveTo investigate the comparative rates of imaging studies between pregnant and non-pregnant female patients who presented for emergent evaluation of chest pain and shortness of breath. STUDY
designAll reproductive age females presenting to the emergency department at an academic teaching institution with a chief complaint of "chest pain" or "shortness of breath" from 2010 to 2015 were identifi ed. Cohorts were divided based on pregnancy status and chief complaint. Utilization rates of imaging studies were compared between cohorts.
resultsOver the study period 4,834 women were included. One hundred and seventy-four were pregnant. Pregnant patients with "chest pain" or "shortness of breath" were signifi cantly more likely to undergo a venous duplex, but less likely to undergo a chest X-ray as compared to non-pregnant patients. There was no difference in the rates of chest computed tomography (CT) imaging or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) based on pregnancy status in our data set.
conclusionImaging studies are an integral adjunct for evaluation in patients reporting "chest pain" and "shortness of breath." Pregnancy places patients at an increased risk of severe sequelae requiring prompt diagnosis to prevent harm to the mother and fetus. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) Committee Opinion 656 clearly states that, with few exceptions, radiography should not be withheld from pregnant patients. This study suggests that pregnant patients are signifi cantly less likely to undergo radiography, which could place them at increased risk for delayed diagnosis and treatment.
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.