ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2022
Comparison between standard and ultrasound-integrated approach for risk stratification of syncope in the emergency department.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Procedural case: Ultrasound Case: Syncope in PE.Journal of education & teaching in emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Syncope in the Emergency Department: A Practical Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Point of Care Ultrasound as a Key Tool in the Evaluation of a Woman with Syncope.POCUS journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This prospective cohort enrolled all patients above 16 years of age presenting to the in the emergency department (ED) for a reported syncope was designed to test the accuracy of a point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) integrated approach in risk stratification. The emergency physician responsible for the patient care was asked to classify the syncope risk after the initial clinical assessment and after performing POCUS evaluation. All risk group definitions were based on the 2018 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Thirty days after the index event, all participants were followed up to assess the frequency of short-term serious outcomes as defined in the San Francisco Syncope Rule (SFSR) cohorts. We estimated the accuracy of clinical and POCUS-integrated evaluation in predicting SFSR outcomes. Between February 2016 and January 2018, 196 patients were enrolled [109 women (55.6%)]. Median age was 64 years (interquartile range 31 years). After a follow-up of 30 days, 19 patients experienced 20 SFSR outcomes. Positive and negative likelihood ratios were 1.73 (95% CI 0.87-3.44) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.62-1.12) for the clinical evaluation, and 5.93 (95% CI 2.83-12.5) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.45-0.9) for the POCUS-integrated evaluation. The POCUS-integrated approach would reduce the diagnostic error of the clinical evaluation by 4.5 cases/100 patients. This cohort study suggested that the integration of the clinical assessment with POCUS results in patients presenting to the ED for non-high-risk syncope may increase the accuracy of predicting the risk of SFSR outcomes and the usefulness of the clinical assessment alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35064436What 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.