Observational studyMedicine2025
Comparative evaluation of HEART, T-MACS, and HE-MACS scores for risk stratification and management of patients with chest pain in the emergency department.
Observational study in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Efficacy of CPS, HEART and TIMI Score in Emergency Department Patients with Non-Traumatic Chest Pain: A Pilot Study.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the effectiveness of history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin (HEART), troponin-only Manchester acute coronary syndromes (T-MACS), and history and electrocardiogram-only Manchester acute coronary syndromes (HE-MACS) in diagnosing and managing acute coronary syndrome in patients presenting with chest pain in the emergency department. These scoring systems are crucial for risk stratification and the prediction of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and mortality within 30 days. A single-center prospective analytical study was conducted following the STROBE guidelines, with 560 patients presenting with chest pain or ischemic equivalent symptoms at the Ege University Faculty of Medicine Hospital from August 2020 to March 2021. The HEART, T-MACS, and HE-MACS scores were calculated for each patient, and their predictive values for MACE and mortality were analyzed using receiver operating characteristic analysis. The HEART score demonstrated an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.929 for predicting mortality, with 100% sensitivity and 81% specificity. It has been identified as the most reliable predictor of mortality. The T-MACS score showed an AUC of 0.875 for mortality prediction with 85.7% sensitivity and 83.9% specificity. It is particularly effective for high-risk patients, predicting 30-day MACE development rates, which is consistent with the literature. The HE-MACS score yielded an AUC of 0.729 for mortality prediction, with 71.4% sensitivity and 80.7% specificity. Although it effectively excludes MACE in very-low-risk patients, it is limited by its application to a highly isolated group. The discussion interprets the results and compares them with existing literature. The study confirms the high effectiveness of the HEART score in mortality risk assessment, the specificity of the T-MACS score for high-risk patients, and the utility of the HE-MACS score for excluding very-low-risk cases. The limitations of each scoring system are discussed and recommendations for their application in clinical practice are provided. The study concluded that selecting the most appropriate scoring system based on individual patient characteristics is essential for optimal patient management in the emergency department. For optimal patient management, it is essential to select the most appropriate scoring system based on the individual patient characteristics.
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.