Observational studyIrish journal of medical science2023
Comparison of syncope risk scores in predicting the prognosis of patients presenting to the emergency department with syncope.
Observational study in Irish journal of medical science, 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious scores have been derived for the assessment of syncope patients in the emergency department (ED).
aimWe aimed to compare the effectiveness of Canadian Syncope Risk Scores (CSRS), San Francisco Syncope Rules (SFSR), and Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope nel Lazio (OESIL) risk scores in predicting the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and mortality among syncope patients within 30 days of the initial ED visit.
methodsWe performed a prospective, observational case series study of adults (≥ 18 years) with unexplained syncope/near-syncope who presented to ED. Demographic characteristics of the patients and clinical and laboratory data were recorded in the standard data collection form of the study. Our primary outcome was a 30-day mortality.
resultsA total of 421 patients (mean age 50.9 ± 20.8, 51.5% male) were enrolled. The rate of MACE development in the 30-day follow-up of the patients was 12.8% (n = 54). While 20.2% (n = 85) of the patients were hospitalized, two of the patients died in the emergency room and the 30-day mortality was 5.5% (n = 23). CSRS was found to have the highest predictive power of mortality (AUC: 0.869, 95% CI 0.799-0.939, p < 0.001). If the cut-off value of CSRS was 0.5, the sensitivity was found to be 82.6% and the specificity was 81.9%. Also CSRS (OR: 1.402, 95% CI: 1.053-1.867, p = 0.021) was found to be an independent predictor of the 30-day mortality.
conclusionThe CSRS may be used as a safety risk score for a 30-day risk of MACE and mortality after discharge from the emergency department.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37171572What 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.