ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2021
Comparison of self-reported EDACS versus physician-reported EDACS for the triage of chest pain patients in the emergency department.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2021. 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.
- A comparison of self-triage tools to nurse driven triage in the emergency department.PloS one · 2024Article
- Comparison of self-reported EDACS versus physician-reported EDACS for the triage of chest pain patients in the emergency department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCurrently, there are no guidelines to help triage nurses identify high-risk emergency department chest pain patients. Patient self-reporting of Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score (EDACS) could facilitate more reliable triage compared to nursing gestalt, but this novel concept is untested. This study hypothesizes that because EDACS requires minimal clinical gestalt to derive, self-reported EDACS (S-EDACS) at triage is likely to correlate well with traditional physician-reported EDACS (P-EDACS) and have potential application as a triage tool.
methodsThis single-center pilot prospective cohort study analyzed 60 patients who completed a self-reported questionnaire upon triage to determine their S-EDACS. This was matched against P-EDACS, derived from an identical questionnaire completed by the blinded treating physician. Secondary endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) within 30 days (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization) was assessed by 2 blinded emergency physicians who independently reviewed the electronic medical records. S/P-EDACS also were benchmarked against nursing gestalt (based on triage to low/high-acuity areas) and emergency physician gestalt (disposition and admitting/discharge diagnoses).
resultsThere was perfect agreement between S/P-EDACS in this study (
conclusionS-EDACS strongly correlates with P-EDACS with perfect agreement and has potential to be used as a triage tool.
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.