Traditionally taught clinical variables and risk factors perform poorly in the prediction of acute coronary syndromes in the emergency department.

Evidence-Based Medicine Pub Date : 2016-12-01 Epub Date: 2016-09-06 DOI:10.1136/ebmed-2015-110361
Martin Than
{"title":"Traditionally taught clinical variables and risk factors perform poorly in the prediction of acute coronary syndromes in the emergency department.","authors":"Martin Than","doi":"10.1136/ebmed-2015-110361","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Commentary on: Fanaroff AC, Rymer JA, Goldstein SA, et al. Does this patient with chest pain have acute coronary syndrome? The rational clinical examination systematic review. JAMA 2015;314:1955–65[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3].\n\nUp to 5–10% of annual presentations to emergency departments (EDs) and 25% of hospital admissions are patients with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Estimating the pretest probability of ACS is important. Traditionally, this has been determined using clinical acumen, primarily involving historical variables and risk factors learnt during early training and reinforced in clinical practice. This systematic review assessed diagnostic utility of the history, physical examination and ECG to increase or decrease the estimated likelihood of ACS. It also assessed the accuracy of decision aids (risk scores) in combination with the initial ECG and troponin level.\n\nStudies included in this systematic review had to (1) involve patients presenting to an ED with suspected …\n\n [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJAMA%26rft.volume%253D314%26rft.spage%253D1955%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Fjama.2015.12735%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F26547467%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx\n [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2015.12735&link_type=DOI\n [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=26547467&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F21%2F6%2F236.atom","PeriodicalId":12182,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":"21 6","pages":"236"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/ebmed-2015-110361","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2015-110361","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/9/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Commentary on: Fanaroff AC, Rymer JA, Goldstein SA, et al. Does this patient with chest pain have acute coronary syndrome? The rational clinical examination systematic review. JAMA 2015;314:1955–65[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3]. Up to 5–10% of annual presentations to emergency departments (EDs) and 25% of hospital admissions are patients with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Estimating the pretest probability of ACS is important. Traditionally, this has been determined using clinical acumen, primarily involving historical variables and risk factors learnt during early training and reinforced in clinical practice. This systematic review assessed diagnostic utility of the history, physical examination and ECG to increase or decrease the estimated likelihood of ACS. It also assessed the accuracy of decision aids (risk scores) in combination with the initial ECG and troponin level. Studies included in this systematic review had to (1) involve patients presenting to an ED with suspected … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJAMA%26rft.volume%253D314%26rft.spage%253D1955%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Fjama.2015.12735%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F26547467%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2015.12735&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=26547467&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F21%2F6%2F236.atom
传统的临床变量和危险因素在急诊科预测急性冠状动脉综合征方面表现不佳。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信