ArticleOchsner journal2025
HEART Score Agreement Between Attending and Resident Emergency Medicine Physicians for Patients With Potential Acute Coronary Syndrome.
Article in Ochsner journal, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chest pain in the emergency department requires swift diagnosis to distinguish between acute coronary syndrome and noncardiac causes. The use of the HEART score, which risk-stratifies patients based on history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin, reduces unnecessary admissions and costs. However, evaluations by resident physicians supervised by attending physicians can delay treatment and increase costs. Methods: We assessed interrater reliability between attending physician and resident physician HEART scores in 2 study phases. In phase 1, participants were not provided with a standardized form, but in phase 2, participants used a standardized form to calculate HEART scores. Differences in scores were compared by years of experience and by study phase. Results: A total of 75 HEART score comparisons were analyzed. Fifty comparisons between attending physicians and resident physicians were completed in phase 1, and 25 comparisons were completed in phase 2. Discrepancies between attending and resident physician scores ≤3 vs >3 decreased from 24% in phase 1 to 8% in phase 2. Attending physician years of experience did not affect discrepancies in HEART scores ≤3 vs >3 between attending and resident physicians (odds ratio [OR] 1.18 [95% CI 0.78 to 1.81]). Similarly, resident physician years of experience did not affect differences in HEART scores ≤3 vs >3 between attending and resident physicians (OR 0.77 [95% CI 0.38 to 1.53]). Conclusion: The study found good agreement between attending physician and resident physician HEART scores, with experience level not significantly affecting discrepancies. The standardized scoring form improved consistency, although not significantly.
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.