Observational studyAnnals of emergency medicine2026
Serious Cardiac Outcomes and Physician Estimation of Risk in Emergency Department Patients With Presyncope Versus Syncope.
Observational study in Annals of emergency medicine, 2026. 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.
- Validation of 2 Syncope Risk Scores and Comparison With Physician Risk Estimation.JAMA network open · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
objectivePrevious research suggests that the short-term incidence of adverse events is similar in emergency department (ED) patients with presyncope and syncope. However, admission rates for presyncope are lower, which could imply clinicians underestimate its risk. We sought to compare physician risk estimates and the 30-day rate of serious cardiac outcomes between patients with syncope and presyncope.
methodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of a prospective, observational, multicenter study of patients aged ≥40 years presenting to ED with presyncope or syncope. Patients with serious ED diagnoses were excluded. Descriptive statistics and multivariable regression analyses were used to compare the physician-estimated risk, ED disposition, and 30-day rate of adverse outcomes.
resultsOf the 1,263 patients analyzed, 721 (57%) had syncope and 542 (43%) had presyncope. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. At 30 days, 34 (4.7%) syncope patients and 28 (5.2%) presyncope patients experienced a serious cardiac outcome; logistic regression showed no difference in the odds (odds ratio 1.13; 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.79) of serious cardiac outcomes between syncope and presyncope patients. The mean physician-estimated risk of serious cardiac outcomes was 7.6% in syncope, versus 5.3% in presyncope (risk difference 2.3% [0.89%, 3.7%]); this difference remained significant after adjustment for clinical characteristics. Admission rate was lower in presyncope, 38.2% versus 49.5% (risk difference 11.3% [1.2%, 21.5%]).
conclusionPatients with unexplained presyncope and syncope had similar rates of 30-day serious cardiac outcomes after ED visit. Patients with presyncope were less likely to be admitted and had a lower mean physician-estimated risk of adverse outcomes.
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.