SynthesisAnnals of family medicine
Chest Pain in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Risk Stratification Tools to Rule Out Acute Coronary Syndrome.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Adequately identifying low-risk chest pain in emergency primary care: evaluating the performance of preHEAR(T) based on two European cohorts.Open heart · 2025Article
- Rapid rule-out of acute myocardial infarction using the 0/1-hour algorithm for cardiac troponins in emergency primary care: the OUT-ACS implementation study.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Predictive value of modified early warning score and risk stratification for adverse cardiovascular events in acute chest pain patients.American journal of translational research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.