ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2022
Development and validation of a comprehensive early risk prediction model for patients with undifferentiated acute chest pain.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Temporal Validation of a Logistic Regression-Based Risk Score for Identifying Life-Threatening Chest Pain at Emergency Department Triage: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Vascular health and risk management · 2026Observational
- Research status, hotspots and perspectives of artificial intelligence applied to pain management: a bibliometric and visual analysis.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
- The development of a decision support tool in the prehospital setting for acute chest pain - a study protocol for an observational study (BRIAN2).Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Existing risk scores for undifferentiated chest pain focus on excluding coronary events and do not represent a comprehensive risk assessment if an alternate serious diagnosis is present. This study aimed to develop and validate an all-inclusive risk prediction model among patients with undifferentiated chest pain. Methods: We developed and validated a multivariable logistic regression model for a composite measure of early all-inclusive risk (defined as hospital admission excluding a discharge diagnosis of non-specific pain, 30-day all-cause mortality, or 30-day myocardial infarction [MI]) among adults assessed by emergency medical services (EMS) for non-traumatic chest pain using a large population-based cohort (January 2015 to June 2019). The cohort was randomly divided into development (146,507 patients [70%]) and validation (62,788 patients [30%]) cohorts. Results: The composite outcome occurred in 28.4%, comprising hospital admission in 27.7%, mortality within 30-days in 1.8%, and MI within 30-days in 0.4%. The Early Chest pain Admission, MI, and Mortality (ECAMM) risk model was developed, demonstrating good discrimination in the development (C-statistic 0.775, 95% CI 0.772-0.777) and validation cohorts (C-statistic 0.765, 95% CI 0.761-0.769) with excellent calibration. Discriminatory performance for the composite outcome and individual components was higher than existing scores commonly used in undifferentiated chest pain risk stratification. Conclusions: The ECAMM risk score model can be used as an all-inclusive risk stratification assessment of patients with non-traumatic chest pain without the limitation of a single diagnostic outcome. This model could be clinically useful to help guide decisions surrounding the need for non-coronary investigations and safety of early discharge.
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.