SynthesisHerz2026
HEART vs. GRACE scores for 30-day cardiovascular outcomes in acute chest pain : A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Herz, 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.
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute chest pain is a common emergency department (ED) presentation requiring rapid risk stratification for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; including death, myocardial infarction, and urgent revascularization). While the HEART (History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, Troponin) and GRACE scores are widely used, their comparative predictive accuracy for short-term MACE remains unclear. This study aimed to directly compare the diagnostic performance of HEART and GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) in predicting 30-day MACE among ED patients with acute chest pain.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to May 2025 for prospective cohort studies directly comparing HEART and GRACE scores. Included studies applied both scores at ED presentation, reported 30-day MACE (death, myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization), and provided data for 2 × 2 contingency tables. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios (PLR/NLR), diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed via I
resultsIn total, 19 studies (14,862 patients) were included. The HEART score demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity (0.96, 95% CI: 0.94-0.98 vs. 0.88, 95% CI: 0.85-0.91; ratio: 1.09 [1.05-1.14]) and lower negative likelihood ratio (NLR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03-0.17 vs. 0.42, 95% CI: 0.39-0.46) than the GRACE score. Specificity was lower for HEART (0.50, 95% CI: 0.41-0.60) versus GRACE (0.61, 95% CI: 0.58-0.64), while GRACE showed higher specificity. HEART also had superior discriminative power (AUC: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.77-0.84 vs. 0.72, 95% CI: 0.69-0.75; ratio: 1.11 [1.07-1.15]). Subgroup analyses confirmed HEART's advantage in sensitivity across geographic regions and age groups, particularly in Eastern populations (sensitivity ratio: 1.57 [1.27-1.93]).
conclusionThe HEART score outperforms GRACE in sensitivity and rule-out capability (lower NLR) for 30-day MACE in ED patients with acute chest pain, supporting its utility for safe discharge of low-risk individuals. GRACE's higher specificity may aid in identifying high-risk cases requiring intervention. Standardization of troponin assays and MACE definitions is critical for future implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41003766What 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.