ArticleBMC primary care2025
Diagnosing acute coronary syndrome in telephone triage: does it matter who initially calls? A cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdequate triage of patients with symptoms suggestive of ACS is crucial. Considering who calls might be useful to improve telephone triage of these patients. In this article, we aim to assess whether a call made by a surrogate is related to urgency allocation or higher odds of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) than patient-initiated calls, and to assess possible gender differences.
methodsCross-sectional study of patients with symptoms suggestive of ACS who called the out-of-hours service in primary care (OHS-PC). Calls were classified into "patient-initiated call" or "surrogate call". Call and patient characteristics were collected. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated for the relationship between the type of call and (i) urgency allocation, (ii) ACS, and (iii) ACS or other life-threatening event, stratified for gender.
resultsIn total 2,428 recordings were included for analysis. Around half of the recordings were surrogate calls, and these more often received a high urgency (80.0%) than patient-initiated calls (57.8%), OR 2.92 (95%CI 2.44-3.50); in women OR 3.46, (95%CI 2.70-4.45), in men OR 2.42 (95%CI 1.86-3.16). Of all participants, 11.0% were diagnosed with an ACS; in women 8.0%, in men 14.7%. In the surrogate call group this was 14.4%, in the patient-initiated call group 7.6%; OR 2.04 (95%CI 1.57-2.67). In women, the OR was 2.46 (95%CI 1.63-3.77), in men 1.69 (95%CI 1.20-2.41).
conclusionsCompared to patients who call themselves, surrogate calls on behalf of a patient with symptoms suggestive of ACS receive more often a high urgency, and these patients have a risk twice as high of an ACS, an effect similar in women and men. It is useful for triage at the OHS-PC to consider who calls if it concerns a patient with symptoms suggestive of ACS. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NTR7331. Registration Date 26-06-2018.
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.