Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39496561›Full record

SynthesisAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2025

Risk-stratification tools for emergency department patients with syncope: A systematic review and meta-analysis of direct evidence for SAEM GRACE.

Abel Wakai, Richard Sinert, Shahriar Zehtabchi, Ian S de Souza, Roshanak Benabbas, Robert Allen, Eric Dunne, Rebekah Richards, Amelie Ardilouze, Isidora Rovic

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Risk-stratification tools for emergency department patients with syncope: A systematic review and meta-analysis of direct evidence for SAEM GRACE.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors.

Abel WakaiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-2021-2388
Richard SinertDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kings County Hospital Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.
Shahriar ZehtabchiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kings County Hospital Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.
Ian S de SouzaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kings County Hospital Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1223-7502
Roshanak BenabbasDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kings County Hospital Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7303-3722
Robert AllenDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Los Angeles General Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5491-683X
Eric DunneDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster Children's Hospital, McMaster University-Internal Medicine Residency Program, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Rebekah RichardsDepartment of Emergency Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Amelie ArdilouzeDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Isidora RovicDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster Children's Hospital, McMaster University-Internal Medicine Residency Program, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesApproximately 10% of patients with syncope have serious or life-threatening causes that may not be apparent during the initial emergency department (ED) assessment. Consequently, researchers have developed clinical decision rules (CDRs) to predict adverse outcomes and risk stratify ED syncope patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aims to cohere and synthesize the best current evidence regarding the methodological quality and predictive accuracy of CDRs for developing an evidence-based ED syncope management guideline.

methodsWe conducted a systematic literature search according to the patient-intervention-control-outcome question: In patients 16 years of age or older who present to the ED with syncope for whom no underlying serious/life-threatening condition was found during the index ED visit (population), are risk stratification tools (intervention), better than unstructured clinical judgment (i.e., usual care; comparison), for providing accurate prognosis and aiding disposition decision for outcomes within 30 days (outcome)? Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality. We performed statistical analysis using Meta-DiSc. We used GRADEPro GDT software to determine the certainty of the evidence and create a summary of the findings (SoF) tables.

resultsOf 2047 publications obtained through the search strategy, 31 comprising 13 CDRs met the inclusion criteria. There were 13 derivation studies (17,578 participants) and 24 validation studies (14,845 participants). Only three CDRs were validated in more than two studies. The San Francisco Syncope Rule (SFSR) was validated in 12 studies: positive likelihood ratio (LR+) 1.15-4.70 and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) 0.03-0.64. The Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) was validated in five studies: LR+ 1.15-2.58 and LR- 0.05-0.50. The Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope nel Lazio (OESIL) risk score was validated in five studies: LR+ 1.16-3.32 and LR- 0.14-0.46.

conclusionsMost CDRs for ED adult syncope management have low-quality evidence for routine clinical practice use. Only three CDRs (SFSR, CSRS, OESIL) are validated by more than two studies, with significant overlap in operating characteristics.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision RulesEmergency Service, HospitalSyncopeHumansMaleRisk Assessmentclinical decision ruleemergency departmentsyncope

Identifiers

PMID39496561
PMCPMC11726151

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.