ArticleAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2026
Validation of a 0/2-Hour Point-Of-Care High Sensitivity Troponin Algorithm: A Multisite US Study.
Article in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06899776 (Assessing Chest Pain Using Point-of-Care High-Sensitivity Troponin I in the Emergency Department), which is not on this 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.
Assessing Chest Pain Using Point-of-Care High-Sensitivity Troponin I in the Emergency Department
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validation of a 0/2-Hour Point-Of-Care High Sensitivity Troponin Algorithm: A Multisite US Study.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesA 0/2-h algorithm for the i-STAT point-of-care (POC) high sensitivity troponin I (hs-cTnI) assay was recently derived in Australia. The objective of this study was to validate and optimize the performance of the 0/2-h algorithm in a multisite U.S. Emergency Department (ED) cohort.
methodsA prospective cohort study was conducted at three U.S. EDs (February-September 2025). Adults without STEMI and at least one hs-cTnI ordered were accrued. Blood samples were collected simultaneously for POC hs-cTnI measurement on an i-STAT 1 analyzer (Abbott Laboratories) and central laboratory hs-cTnI measurement (Beckman Coulter). The primary outcome was index myocardial infarction (MI), adjudicated by experts using clinical hs-cTnI measures. Diagnostic performance of the Australian 0/2-h algorithm was assessed by calculating negative and positive predictive values (NPV, PPV) with associated 95% confidence intervals. Efficacy, defined as the proportion of patients classified into the rule-out zone, was calculated. Algorithm optimization tested modified cut points to increase efficacy while maintaining NPV ≥ 99% and achieving PPV ≥ 65%.
resultsDuring the study period, 578 patients with complete 0/2-h algorithm assessments were accrued. These patients were 48% (279/578) female, 40% (233/578) non-White, with a median age of 60 years (IQR: 50-70). Index MI occurred in 7.4% (43/578). Algorithm efficacy was 54.8% (317/578) and 8.8% (51/578) were classified to the rule-in zone. Among patients ruled-out, the NPV was 99.4% (95% CI: 97.7%-99.9%). The rule-in zone was associated with a PPV of 62.7% (95% CI: 48.1%-75.9%). Among 36.3% (210/578) patients classified to the observation zone, 4.3% (9/210) had an adjudicated index MI. An optimized 0/2-h algorithm increased efficacy to 60.0% (347/578) while achieving an NPV of 99.4% (95% CI: 97.9%-99.9%) and PPV of 74.4% (95% CI: 58.8, 86.5%) for index MI.
conclusionsThe original Australian and optimized 0/2-h algorithms for i-STAT POC hs-cTnI measurement had high NPV and efficacy in a multisite U.S. COHORT:
trial registrationTrial Registration: NCT06899776.
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.