↓ Skip to main content

Agreement Between Patient-reported and Cardiology-adjudicated Medical History in Patients With Possible Ischemic Chest Pain

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Pathways in Cardiology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Agreement Between Patient-reported and Cardiology-adjudicated Medical History in Patients With Possible Ischemic Chest Pain
Published in
Critical Pathways in Cardiology, September 2016
DOI 10.1097/hpc.0000000000000082
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessandro Iliceto, Sara Louise Berndt, Jaimi H. Greenslade, William A. Parsonage, Christopher Hammett, Martin Than, Tracey Hawkins, Kate Parker, Shannen O’Kane, Louise Cullen

Abstract

Obtaining an accurate medical history is essential in the assessment of patients, particularly in emergency department (ED) patients with acute chest pain, as there can be a time imperative for diagnosis and commencement of treatment. We aimed to evaluate reliability of patient-reported compared with physician-adjudicated medical history by assessing patient's recall and communication of personal events and its influence on the accuracy of the medical history. A total of 776 patients presenting at ED with suspected cardiac chest pain were recruited. Data collection included self-reported patient history, electrocardiogram testing, and troponin I measurements. Independent assessment of risk factors and medical history was adjudicated by cardiologists. Diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) at 30 days after presentation was assessed. Cohen's kappa measured patient-cardiologist agreement. Cardiologist adjudicated events were taken as true to assess accuracy. A total of 83 participants (10.7%) were diagnosed with ACS at 30 days after presentation. "Previous coronary artery bypass grafting" showed highest agreement (K = 1.00) between patient-reported and cardiologist-adjudicated events. Lowest agreement between patient-reported and cardiologist-adjudicated events was found for "prior ventricular dysrhythmia" (K = 0.33). Accuracy of reported "prior congestive heart failure" differed significantly between patients with and without diagnosed ACS at 30 days (92.8% and 97.5%, respectively). Accuracy of patient's recall and communication of medical history and risk factors was substantial but not perfect in the assessment of patients with ACS in the ED context. Our study reinforces the importance in the utilization of medical records and collateral information to address possible discrepancies in the medical history and improve patient care.

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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Other 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Librarian 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 3 23%
Unknown 4 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 15%
Materials Science 1 8%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Unknown 6 46%
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 06 November 2018.
All research outputs
#7,328,939
of 25,714,183 outputs
Outputs from Critical Pathways in Cardiology
#53
of 387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,862
of 349,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Pathways in Cardiology
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,714,183 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 387 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 349,492 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.