Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2025
A missed diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome is associated with ischaemic ECG changes and an initial suspicion of myocardial infarction: a retrospective observational study.
Observational study in BMC emergency 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.
- The Aorta Is One Organ; Our Response Is Not: A Global Case for Systems Redesign in Acute Aortic Syndromes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute aortic syndrome (AAS) is a life-threatening condition reported as often misdiagnosed. Advancements in CT availability and diagnostic algorithms, including high-sensitivity troponin and D-dimer for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and pulmonary embolism (PE), may reduce AAS misdiagnosis, but the impact remains unclear. This study evaluated the incidence, characteristics, and clinical features of missed AAS diagnoses in Swedish emergency departments (EDs) compared with those identified during initial ED visit.
methodsA retrospective observational study was conducted on 630,275 ED visits in Region Skåne, Sweden, from 2017 to 2018. Cases of AAS diagnosed within 30 days were identified via national registers. Clinical features, imaging, ECG findings, blood tests, outcomes, and time of diagnosis were reviewed. Missed diagnosis was defined as AAS not identified in the ED, with the patient being either discharged or admitted without imaging to detect AAS. Aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS) combined with D-dimer levels were also retrospectively calculated.
resultsAmong 98 confirmed AAS cases, 82 were diagnosed during the initial ED visit, whereas 16 (16%; 95% CI: 9.6–25.1%) were initially missed, with 2 discharged from the ED. Patients with missed AAS diagnoses were more likely to present with ST elevation/depression than were those diagnosed during the initial ED visit (43% vs. 15%, p = 0.01). ACS was the initial working diagnosis in 7 of 16 of the missed cases. The median time to diagnosis was significantly longer in missed cases (19 h [2–192] vs. 2 h [0.5–11.6], p < 0.001). Missed cases had higher 30-day (25% vs. 16%) and 90-day mortality rates (38% vs. 18%), although these differences were not statistically significant. In 55 of the 59 AAS patients, the ADD-RS plus D-dimer algorithm recommended CT of the aorta (93% sensitivity).
conclusionMissed AAS remains a diagnostic challenge, with a miss rate of approximately one in six in Swedish EDs. Patients with missed AAS are more likely to present with ST changes and an initial suspicion of ACS. Given the overlap of symptoms, such as chest pain, with other critical conditions like ACS and PE, future ED diagnostic tools should be developed to predict multiple critical diagnoses concurrently.
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.