↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of the Chest Pain Choice decision aid in emergency department patients with low-risk chest pain: study protocol for a multicenter randomized trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
190 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness of the Chest Pain Choice decision aid in emergency department patients with low-risk chest pain: study protocol for a multicenter randomized trial
Published in
Trials, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-15-166
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryan T Anderson, Victor M Montori, Nilay D Shah, Henry H Ting, Laurie J Pencille, Michel Demers, Jeffrey A Kline, Deborah B Diercks, Judd E Hollander, Carlos A Torres, Jason T Schaffer, Jeph Herrin, Megan Branda, Annie Leblanc, Erik P Hess

Abstract

Chest pain is the second most common reason patients visit emergency departments (EDs) and often results in very low-risk patients being admitted for prolonged observation and advanced cardiac testing. Shared decision-making, including educating patients regarding their 45-day risk for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and management options, might safely decrease healthcare utilization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 185 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 15%
Researcher 25 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Student > Postgraduate 12 6%
Other 32 17%
Unknown 42 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 15%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Computer Science 9 5%
Psychology 5 3%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 52 27%