ArticleQJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians2024
Comprehensive validation of early diagnostic algorithms for myocardial infarction in the emergency department.
Article in QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians, 2024. 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, 1 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
32 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo comprehensively evaluate diagnostic algorithms for myocardial infarction using a high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) assay. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe prospectively enrolled patients with suspected myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation from nine emergency departments in Japan. The diagnostic algorithms evaluated: (i) based on hs-cTnI alone, such as the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0/1-h or 0/2-h and High-STEACS pathways; or (ii) used medical history and physical findings, such as the ADAPT, EDACS, HEART, and GRACE pathways. We evaluated the negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity as safety measures, and proportion of patients classified as low or high-risk as an efficiency measure for a primary outcome of type 1 myocardial infarction or cardiac death within 30 days.
resultsWe included 437 patients, and the hs-cTnI was collected at 0 and 1 hours in 407 patients and at 0 and 2 hours in 394. The primary outcome occurred in 8.1% (33/407) and 6.9% (27/394) of patients, respectively. All the algorithms classified low-risk patients without missing those with the primary outcome, except for the GRACE pathway. The hs-cTnI-based algorithms classified more patients as low-risk: the ESC 0/1-h 45.7%; the ESC 0/2-h 50.5%; the High-STEACS pathway 68.5%, than those using history and physical findings (15-30%). The High-STEACS pathway ruled out more patients (20.5%) by hs-cTnI measurement at 0 hours than the ESC 0/1-h and 0/2-h algorithms (7.4%).
conclusionsThe hs-cTnI algorithms, especially the High-STEACS pathway, had excellent safety performance for the early diagnosis of myocardial infarction and offered the greatest improvement in efficiency.
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.