Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39313342›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of family medicine

Chest Pain in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Risk Stratification Tools to Rule Out Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Simone van den Bulk, Amy Manten, Tobias N Bonten, Ralf E Harskamp

Abstract readSystematic ReviewClinical Conference
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Simone van den Bulk *Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden, The Netherlands s.van_den_bulk@lumc.nl.
Amy Manten *Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Departments of General Practice and Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tobias N BontenLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Ralf E HarskampAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Departments of General Practice and Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeChest pain frequently poses a diagnostic challenge for general practitioners (GPs). Utilizing risk stratification tools might help GPs to rule out acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and make appropriate referral decisions. We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating risk stratification tools for chest pain in primary care settings, both with and without troponin assays. Our aims were to assess the performance of tools for ruling out ACS and to provide a comprehensive review of the current evidence.

methodsWe searched PubMed and Embase for articles up to October 9, 2023 concerning adult patients with acute chest pain in primary care settings, for whom risk stratification tools (clinical decision rules [CDRs] and/or single biomarker tests) were used. To identify eligible studies, a combination of active learning and backward snowballing was applied. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment (following the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool) were performed independently by 2 researchers.

resultsOf the 1,204 studies screened, 14 were included in the final review. Nine studies validated 7 different CDRs without troponin. Sensitivities ranged from 75.0% to 97.0%, and negative predictive values (NPV) ranged from 82.4% to 99.7%. None of the CDRs outperformed the unaided judgment of GP's. Five studies reported on strategies using troponin measurements. Studies using high-sensitivity troponin showed highest diagnostic accuracy with sensitivity 83.3% to 100% and NPV 98.8% to 100%.

conclusionClinical decision rules without troponin and the use of conventional troponin showed insufficient sensitivity to rule out ACS in primary care and are not recommended as standalone tools. High-sensitivity troponin strategies are promising, but studies are limited. Further prospective validation in primary care is needed before implementation.

Indexed as

Acute Coronary SyndromeBiomarkersChest PainPrimary Health CareTroponinClinical Decision RulesHumansRisk AssessmentSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkersTroponinacute coronary syndromechest painclinical decision rulesprimary health caretroponin

Identifiers

PMID39313342
PMCPMC11419710

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.