Trial reportBMJ open2026
Marburg Heart Score and INTERCHEST score for telephone triage of acute chest pain: a prospective, diagnostic accuracy study in out-of-hours primary care.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess whether the Marburg Heart Score (MHS) and INTERCHEST score may improve telephone triage of chest pain by providing better diagnostic discrimination compared with the triage protocol from the Netherlands Triage Standard (NTS).
designProspective diagnostic accuracy study.
settingLarge regional out-of-hours primary care (OOH-PC) facility in Alkmaar, the Netherlands.
participantsA total of 1254 eligible patients contacted the OOH-PC facility (median age 56.0 years, 57.9% female) between December 2022 and May 2023. The study was completed and verbal informed consent obtained in 280 (22.3%) patients.
interventionsTriage assistants asked study questions in addition to the NTS protocol to complete the MHS and INTERCHEST score. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Discrimination (C-statistics) and diagnostic test properties (eg, sensitivity/specificity) were used; the reference standard was the occurrence of a major event (ie, composite of all-cause mortality, and urgent cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular conditions) or acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within 6 weeks.
resultsA major event occurred in 36 patients (12.9%), including 13 (4.6%) ACS cases. For predicting major events, the MHS and INTERCHEST scores showed C-statistics of 0.67 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.77) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.74), respectively, compared with 0.62 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.71) for the NTS protocol. For ACS, C-statistics were 0.62 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.79), 0.59 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.75), and 0.62 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.75) for MHS, INTERCHEST and NTS, respectively. Regarding test characteristics, the MHS and INTERCHEST score showed higher point estimates for specificity (27.9% and 26.6%) vs the NTS (19.7%), but at the expense of lower sensitivity (88.9% and 86.1% versus 97.2%) for major events. For ACS, a similar pattern was observed (specificity 26.2% and 25.5% vs 18.4; sensitivity 84.6% and 84.6% vs 100.0%).
conclusionsSimple clinical decision rules (MHS and INTERCHEST) have comparable, modest discriminative ability and diagnostic properties compared with the current protocol for telephone triage of acute chest pain in Dutch OOH-PC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register (TRACE - NL-OMON20102).
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.