ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2023
External validation of the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes ECG risk model within a pre-hospital setting.
Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes ECG (MACS-ECG) prediction model calculates a score based on objective ECG measurements to give the probability of a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). The model showed good performance in the emergency department (ED), but its accuracy in the pre-hospital setting is unknown. We aimed to externally validate MACS-ECG in the pre-hospital environment.
methodsWe undertook a secondary analysis from the Pre-hospital Evaluation of Sensitive Troponin (PRESTO) study, a multi-centre prospective study to validate decision aids in the pre-hospital setting (26 February 2019 to 23 March 2020). Patients with chest pain where the treating paramedic suspected acute coronary syndrome were included. Paramedics collected demographic and historical data and interpreted ECGs contemporaneously (as 'normal' or 'abnormal'). After completing recruitment, we analysed ECGs to calculate the MACS-ECG score, using both a pre-defined threshold and a novel threshold that optimises sensitivity to differentiate AMI from non-AMI. This was compared with subjective ECG interpretation by paramedics. The diagnosis of AMI was adjudicated by two investigators based on serial troponin testing in hospital.
resultsOf 691 participants, 87 had type 1 AMI and 687 had complete data for paramedic ECG interpretation. The MACS-ECG model had a C-index of 0.68 (95% CI: 0.61 to 0.75). At the pre-determined cut-off, MACS-ECG had 2.3% (95% CI: 0.3% to 8.1%) sensitivity, 99.5% (95% CI: 98.6% to 99.9%) specificity, 40.0% (95% CI: 10.2% to 79.3%) positive predictive value (PPV) and 87.6% (87.3% to 88.0%) negative predictive value (NPV). At the optimal threshold for sensitivity, MACS-ECG had 50.6% sensitivity (39.6% to 61.5%), 83.1% specificity (79.9% to 86.0%), 30.1% PPV (24.7% to 36.2%) and 92.1% NPV (90.4% to 93.5%). In comparison, paramedics had a sensitivity of 71.3% (95% CI: 60.8% to 80.5%) with 53.8% (95% CI: 53.8% to 61.8%) specificity, 19.7% (17.2% to 22.45%) PPV and 93.3% (90.8% to 95.1%) NPV.
conclusionNeither MACS-ECG nor paramedic ECG interpretation had a sufficiently high PPV or NPV to 'rule in' or 'rule out' NSTEMI alone.
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.