SynthesisScandinavian journal of primary health care2025
Diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms in acute coronary syndrome and acute myocardial infarction.
Synthesis in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2025. 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.
- Nutritional Status Assessment Tools in Cardiovascular Patients.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Deep learning models for predicting heart disease risk using the UCI database: methods, performance, and clinical context.American journal of cardiovascular disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute coronary syndrome (ACS) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) account for a large portion of cardiovascular deaths. Signs and symptoms for these syndromes, such as chest pain, are non-specific and can be caused by a variety of non-cardiac conditions, especially in low-prevalence settings such as general practice. The diagnostic value of these signs and symptoms can be assessed using diagnostic meta-analyses, but the last one dates from 2012.
methodsWe performed a diagnostic meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL from 2006 to 2024. We included studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of thirteen different signs and symptoms. We divided patients into two subgroups (AMI and ACS) on which analysis was performed independently.
resultsWe selected 24 articles for inclusion. Our analysis indicates that signs and symptoms have a limited role in the diagnosis of AMI or ACS. The most useful (highest diagnostic odds ratios, DOR) in the diagnosis of AMI were pain radiating to both arms (DOR 2.95 (95%CI 1.57-5.06)), absence of chest wall tenderness (DOR 3.51 (95%CI 1.64-6.61)), pain radiating to the right arm (DOR 5.17 (95%CI 1.77-11.9)) and sweating (DOR 5.75 (95%CI 2.51-11.4)). For ACS these were pain radiating to the right arm (DOR 3.9 (95%CI 0.7-12.6)) and absence of chest wall tenderness (DOR 7.73 (95%CI 2.19-19.8)).
conclusionWe report the accuracy of thirteen signs and symptoms in the diagnosis of AMI and ACS. These can be useful to calibrate general practitioners' diagnostic assessment of chest pain in primary care settings.
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.