Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35505734›Full record

ArticleCureus2022

Syncope: Diagnostic Yield of Various Clinical Investigations.

Rajesh Bhat Uppoor, Kashyap Patel

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rajesh Bhat UppoorCardiology, Kasturba Medical College and Hospital, Mangaluru, IND.
Kashyap PatelMedicine, Kasturba Medical College and Hospital, Mangaluru, IND.
Kasturba Medical College, Manipal · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe present study was designed to evaluate the clinical profile of patients with syncope and the usefulness of various tests to reach a diagnosis of syncope and its etiology.

methodsThis was a cross-sectional, observational study that enrolled 90 consecutive patients (aged ≥ 12 years) who presented with syncope. Detailed information was obtained from each enrolled patient on history and physical examination. All patients underwent electrocardiography (ECG) and echocardiographic examination. Other specific tests were also performed based on the findings from medical history, physical examination, ECG, and echocardiography findings.

resultsAmong 90 patients with syncope, 45% were males, and age distribution showed a bimodal distribution with two peaks. A total of 67% and 5% of patients had past history of syncope and injury due to syncope, respectively. Of the patients, 38% underwent Holter monitoring, 79 (87%) underwent head-up tilt table test (HUTT) test, 8% underwent treadmill test, 36% underwent CT/MRI of the brain, 25% underwent electroencephalography, 40% underwent carotid sinus massage, 7% underwent coronary angiography, 3% underwent electrophysiological study, and 3% of patients underwent carotid Doppler ultrasound. The commonly noted syncope was vasovagal/neutrally mediated syncope (68%). However, the etiology of syncope could not be determined in six (7%) patients.

conclusionThis study concluded that the initial evaluation of patients with syncope should focus on history, physical examination, and ECG examination. Information obtained from such basic evaluations should be used to guide the selection of further high yield tests to reduce the cost of evaluation and for appropriate workup for the diagnosis of syncope.

Indexed as

clinical investigationsdiagnostic testsetiologyetiopathogenesissyncope

Identifiers

PMID35505734
PMCPMC9053362
OpenAlexW4229032410

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.