ArticleCJEM2023
Development of practice recommendations based on the Canadian Syncope Risk Score and identification of barriers and facilitators for implementation.
Article in CJEM, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of 2 Syncope Risk Scores and Comparison With Physician Risk Estimation.JAMA network open · 2026Observational
- Developing Implementation Strategies to Support the Uptake of a Risk Tool to Aid Physicians in the Clinical Management of Patients With Syncope: Systematic Theoretical and User-Centered Design Approach.JMIR human factors · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWide variations in emergency department (ED) syncope management exist. The Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) was developed to predict the probability of 30-day serious outcomes after ED disposition. Study objectives were to evaluate the acceptability of proposed CSRS practice recommendations among providers and patients, and identify barriers and facilitators for CSRS use to guide disposition decisions.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with 41 physicians involved in ED syncope and 35 ED patients with syncope. We used purposive sampling to ensure a variety of physician specialties and CSRS patient risk levels. Thematic analysis was completed by two independent coders with consensus meetings to resolve conflicts. Analysis proceeded in parallel with interviews until data saturation.
resultsThe majority (97.6%; 40/41) of physicians agreed with discharge of low risk (CSRS ≤ 0) but opined that 'no follow up' changed to 'follow-up as needed'. Physicians indicated current practices do not align with the medium-risk recommendation to discharge patients with 15-day monitoring (CSRS = 1-3; due to lack of access to monitors and timely follow-up) and the high-risk recommendation (CSRS ≥ 4) to potentially discharge patients with 15-day monitoring. Physicians recommended brief hospitalization of high-risk patients due to patient safety concerns. Facilitators included the CSRS-based patient education and scores supporting their clinical gestalt. Patients reported receiving varying levels of information regarding syncope and post-ED care, were satisfied with care received and preferred less resource intensive options.
conclusionOur recommendations based on the study results were: discharge of low-risk patients with physician follow-up as needed; discharge of medium-risk patients with 15-day cardiac monitoring and brief hospitalization of high-risk patients with 15-day cardiac monitoring if discharged. Patients preferred less resource intensive options, in line with CSRS recommended care. Implementation should leverage identified facilitators (e.g., patient education) and address the barriers (e.g., monitor access) to improve ED syncope care.
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.