Chest pain in general practice : a systematic review of prediction rules
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ..
OBJECTIVE: To identify and assess the performance of clinical decision rules (CDR) for chest pain in general practice.
DESIGN: Systematic review of diagnostic studies.
DATA SOURCES: Medline/Pubmed, Embase/Ovid, CINAHL/EBSCO and Google Scholar up to October 2018.
STUDY SELECTION: Studies that assessed CDRs for intermittent-type chest pain and for rule out of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) applicable in general practice, thus not relying on advanced laboratory, computer or diagnostic testing.
REVIEW METHODS: Reviewers identified studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence (using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2)), independently and in duplicate.
RESULTS: Eight studies comprising five CDRs met the inclusion criteria. Three CDRs are designed for rule out of coronary disease in intermittent-type chest pain (Gencer rule, Marburg Heart Score, INTERCHEST), and two for rule out of ACS (Grijseels rule, Bruins Slot rule). Studies that examined the Marburg Heart Score had the highest methodological quality with consistent sensitivity (86%-91%), specificity (61%-81%) and positive (23%-35%) and negative (97%-98%) predictive values (PPV and NPV). The diagnostic performance of Gencer (PPV: 20%-34%, NPV: 95%-99%) and INTERCHEST (PPV: 35%-43%, NPV: 96%-98%) appear comparable, but requires further validation. The Marburg Heart Score was more sensitive in detecting coronary disease than the clinical judgement of the general practitioner. The performance of CDRs that focused on rule out of ACS were: Grijseels rule (sensitivity: 91%, specificity: 37%, PPV: 57%, NPV: 82%) and Bruins Slot (sensitivity: 97%, specificity: 10%, PPV: 23%, NPV: 92%). Compared with clinical judgement, the Bruins Slot rule appeared to be safer than clinical judgement alone, but the study was limited in sample size.
CONCLUSIONS: In general practice, there is currently no clinical decision aid that can safely rule out ACS. For intermittent chest pain, several rules exist, of which the Marburg Heart Score has been most extensively tested and appears to outperform clinical judgement alone.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2019 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2019 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:9 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
BMJ open - 9(2019), 2 vom: 27. Feb., Seite e027081 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Harskamp, Ralf E [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Coronary heart disease |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 25.03.2020 Date Revised 25.03.2020 published: Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027081 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM294440933 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM294440933 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231226195914.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027081 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n0981.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM294440933 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)30819715 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Harskamp, Ralf E |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Chest pain in general practice |b a systematic review of prediction rules |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2019 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 25.03.2020 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 25.03.2020 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. | ||
| 520 | |a OBJECTIVE: To identify and assess the performance of clinical decision rules (CDR) for chest pain in general practice | ||
| 520 | |a DESIGN: Systematic review of diagnostic studies | ||
| 520 | |a DATA SOURCES: Medline/Pubmed, Embase/Ovid, CINAHL/EBSCO and Google Scholar up to October 2018 | ||
| 520 | |a STUDY SELECTION: Studies that assessed CDRs for intermittent-type chest pain and for rule out of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) applicable in general practice, thus not relying on advanced laboratory, computer or diagnostic testing | ||
| 520 | |a REVIEW METHODS: Reviewers identified studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence (using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2)), independently and in duplicate | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: Eight studies comprising five CDRs met the inclusion criteria. Three CDRs are designed for rule out of coronary disease in intermittent-type chest pain (Gencer rule, Marburg Heart Score, INTERCHEST), and two for rule out of ACS (Grijseels rule, Bruins Slot rule). Studies that examined the Marburg Heart Score had the highest methodological quality with consistent sensitivity (86%-91%), specificity (61%-81%) and positive (23%-35%) and negative (97%-98%) predictive values (PPV and NPV). The diagnostic performance of Gencer (PPV: 20%-34%, NPV: 95%-99%) and INTERCHEST (PPV: 35%-43%, NPV: 96%-98%) appear comparable, but requires further validation. The Marburg Heart Score was more sensitive in detecting coronary disease than the clinical judgement of the general practitioner. The performance of CDRs that focused on rule out of ACS were: Grijseels rule (sensitivity: 91%, specificity: 37%, PPV: 57%, NPV: 82%) and Bruins Slot (sensitivity: 97%, specificity: 10%, PPV: 23%, NPV: 92%). Compared with clinical judgement, the Bruins Slot rule appeared to be safer than clinical judgement alone, but the study was limited in sample size | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: In general practice, there is currently no clinical decision aid that can safely rule out ACS. For intermittent chest pain, several rules exist, of which the Marburg Heart Score has been most extensively tested and appears to outperform clinical judgement alone | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Systematic Review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a coronary heart disease | |
| 650 | 4 | |a medical history | |
| 650 | 4 | |a primary care | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Laeven, Simone C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Himmelreich, Jelle Cl |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lucassen, Wim A M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a van Weert, Henk C P M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t BMJ open |d 2012 |g 9(2019), 2 vom: 27. Feb., Seite e027081 |w (DE-627)NLM215724372 |x 2044-6055 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:9 |g year:2019 |g number:2 |g day:27 |g month:02 |g pages:e027081 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027081 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 9 |j 2019 |e 2 |b 27 |c 02 |h e027081 | ||