↓ Skip to main content

Clinical assessment of patients with chest pain; a systematic review of predictive tools

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 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
Clinical assessment of patients with chest pain; a systematic review of predictive tools
Published in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12872-016-0196-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luis Ayerbe, Esteban González, Valentina Gallo, Claire L. Coleman, Andrew Wragg, John Robson

Abstract

The clinical assessment of patients with chest pain of recent onset remains difficult. This study presents a critical review of clinical predictive tools for the assessment of patients with chest pain. Systematic review of observational studies and estimation of probabilities of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with chest pain. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify studies reporting tools, with at least three variables from clinical history, physical examination or ECG, produced with multivariate analysis, to estimate probabilities of CAD in patients with chest pain of recent onset, published from inception of the database to the 31(st) July 2015. The references of previous relevant reviews were hand searched. The methodological quality was assessed with standard criteria. Since the incidence of CAD has changed in the past few decades, the date of publication was acknowledged to be relevant in order to use the tool in clinical practice, and more recent papers were considered more relevant. Probabilities of CAD according to the studies of highest quality were estimated and the evidence provided was graded. Twelve papers were included out of the 19126 references initially identified. The methodological quality of all of them was high. The clinical characteristics of the chest pain, age, past medical history of cardiovascular disease, gender, and abnormalities in the ECG were the predictors of CAD most commonly reported across the studies. The most recent papers, with highest methodological quality, and most practical for use in clinical settings, reported prediction or exclusion of CAD with area under the curve 0.90 in Primary Care, 0.91 in Emergency department, and 0.79 in Cardiology. These papers provide evidence of high level (1B) and the recommendation to use their results in the management of patients with chest pain is strong (A). The risk of CAD can be estimated on clinical grounds in patients with chest pain in different clinical settings with high accuracy. The estimation of probabilities of CAD presented in these studies could be used for a better management of patients with chest pain and also in the development of future predictive tools.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 129 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 16%
Other 12 9%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Master 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 47 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 15%
Psychology 3 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 48 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 March 2016.
All research outputs
#6,342,797
of 23,138,859 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#305
of 1,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,479
of 396,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#4
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,138,859 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,655 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 396,309 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.