ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2022
Prognostic accuracy of syncope clinical prediction rules in older adults in the emergency department.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Management of Syncope in Geriatric Patients: Are 2018 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines Still Relevant?Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Validation of 2 Syncope Risk Scores and Comparison With Physician Risk Estimation.JAMA network open · 2026Observational
- Diagnostic and prognostic value of troponins and natriuretic peptides in syncope: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2025Article
- A Hybrid Model for 30-Day Syncope Prognosis Prediction in the Emergency Department.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Association between Syncope and the 6-Month Incidence of Ischemic Stroke, Arrhythmia, Brain Tumor, Epilepsy, and Anxiety Disorder.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Prognostic accuracy of syncope clinical prediction rules in older adults in the emergency department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Study objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the prognostic accuracy of existing rules (San Francisco Syncope Rule [SFSR], Canadian Syncope Risk Score [CSRS], and FAINT score) in older adults. Methods: This is a cohort study of adults aged ≥60 years presenting to an academic emergency department (ED) with syncope or near syncope. We used original criteria for all rules except for the FAINT score, in which N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide was largely missing from the extracted data. Patients were deemed positive for each rule if classified as non-low risk. The primary outcome was the presence of 30-day serious outcome, as defined by syncope research guidelines. Sensitivity and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of 404 ED visits (mean age of patients, 75.5 years) were included. Of these, 44 (10.9%) had a 30-day serious outcome, and 24 (5.9%) had incomplete 30-day follow-up. SFSR was positive for 280 of 380 visits with complete follow-up. Its sensitivity and NLR for predicting 30-day serious outcomes were 86.4% (95% CI, 72.0%-94.3%) and 0.53 (95% CI, 0.25-1.15), respectively. The CSRS was positive for 299 of 380 visits (sensitivity was 88.6% [95% CI, 76.4%-95.7%], and NLR was 0.50 [95% CI, 0.22-1.17]). The modified FAI(N)T score was positive for 318 of 380 visits (sensitivity was 90.9% [95% CI, 77.4%-97.0%], and NLR was 0.53 [95% CI, 0.20-1.38]). Conclusion: Existing rules are suboptimal to predict 30-day serious outcomes in older adults presenting with syncope or near syncope to the ED.
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.