Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36311342›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2022

Prognostic accuracy of syncope clinical prediction rules in older adults in the emergency department.

Richard D Voigt, Momen Alsayed, Fernanda Bellolio, Ronna L Campbell, Aidan Mullan, James E Colleti, Lucas Oliveira J E Silva

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Prognostic accuracy of syncope clinical prediction rules in older adults in the emergency department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2022
    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

7 authors.

Richard D VoigtDepartment of Emergency Medicine Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Momen AlsayedDepartment of Emergency Medicine Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Fernanda BellolioDepartment of Emergency Medicine Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Ronna L CampbellDepartment of Emergency Medicine Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Aidan MullanDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
James E ColletiDepartment of Emergency Medicine Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Lucas Oliveira J E SilvaDepartment of Emergency Medicine Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5388-9163

Funding

Mayo Clinic Center for Translational Science ActivitiesUL1TR000135 · NCATS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI KHOSLA, SUNDEEP · 2012 to 2015
$41.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000135
6 · The paper itself

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

clinical prediction rulesgeriatric emergency medicineolder adultspre‐syncopeprognosisrisk stratificationsyncope

Identifiers

PMID36311342
PMCPMC9597095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.