ArticleOpen access emergency medicine : OAEM2020
Diagnostic Performance of Point-of-Care Troponin I and Laboratory Troponin T in Patients Presenting to the ED with Chest Pain: A Comparative Study.
Article in Open access emergency medicine : OAEM, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of machine learning for risk stratification of chest pain patients in the emergency department.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Diagnostic performance of a point-of-care high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I assay among Chinese patients with chest pain.Open heart · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Point-of-Care High-Sensitivity Troponin in the Exclusion of Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in the Emergency Department.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Comparison of Point-of-Care and Highly Sensitive Laboratory Troponin Testing in Patients Suspicious of Acute Myocardial Infarction and Its Efficacy in Clinical Outcome.Cardiology research and practice · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChest pain is a common symptom in patients visiting the emergency department (ED). Diagnosing acute coronary syndrome is a challenging task for emergency physicians. Evaluation of chest pain depends on clinical symptoms and signs, ECG, and cardiac enzymes. Here, we aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of the point-of-care troponin I assay with laboratory HsTnT assay in patients presenting to the ED with chest pain.
methodsA prospective study was done at the ED of Alkhor Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, between March 2016 and December 2016. Patients more than 18 years old who presented to the ED with chest pain were enrolled. Patients with renal failure, initial ECG showing ST-elevation MI, or arrhythmias, and hemodynamically unstable patients were excluded. A blood sample was collected at 0 and 3 hours post-admission for POC TnI and laboratory HsTnT assay. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC were determined and compared.
resultsOut of 313 patients enrolled, ten were excluded. At 0 hour, the POC TnI assay had a lower sensitivity (72.5% versus 97.5%) and had almost equal specificity (99.24% versus 93.2%) when compared to lab HsTnT assay. At 3 hours post-admission, the sensitivity increased to 95% versus 100%, and specificity was 100% versus 94.3% when compared to lab HsTnT. The POC TnI assay had a higher PPV than HsTnT, whereas both assays showed a high NPV at 0 and 3 hours.
conclusionAlthough the diagnostic performance of POC TnI was lower than that of Lab HsTnT at 0 hour, at 3 hours post-admission, the diagnostic performance was almost equal to that of HsTnT. Hence we conclude that chest pain in patients with a negative POC TnI at 3 hours post-admission is unlikely to be due to NSTEMI.
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.