↓ Skip to main content

Risk score to predict false-positive ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in the emergency department: a retrospective analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Risk score to predict false-positive ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in the emergency department: a retrospective analysis
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13049-017-0408-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ji Hoon Kim, Yun Ho Roh, Yoo Seok Park, Joon Min Park, Bo Young Joung, In Cheol Park, Sung Phil Chung, Min Joung Kim

Abstract

The best treatment approach for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is prompt primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, some patients show ST elevation on electrocardiography (ECG), but do not have myocardial infarction. We sought to identify the frequency of and to develop a prediction model for false-positive STEMI. This study was conducted in the emergency departments (EDs) of two hospitals using the same critical pathway (CP) protocol to treat STEMI patients with primary PCI. The prediction model was developed in a derivation cohort and validated in internal and external validation cohorts. Of the CP-activated patients, those for whom ST elevation did not meet the ECG criteria were excluded. Among the patients with appropriate ECG patterns, the incidence of false-positive STEMI in the entire cohort was 16.3%. Independent predictors extracted from the derivation cohort for false-positive STEMI were age < 65 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-4.89), no chest pain (OR, 12.04; 95% CI, 5.92-25.63), atypical chest pain (OR, 7.40; 95% CI, 3.27-17.14), no reciprocal change (OR, 4.80; 95% CI, 2.54-9.51), and concave-morphology ST elevation (OR, 14.54; 95% CI, 6.87-34.37). Based on the regression coefficients, we established a simplified risk score. In the internal and external validation cohorts, the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for our risk score were 0.839 (95% CI, 0.724-0.954) and 0.820 (95% CI, 0.727-0.913), respectively; the positive predictive values were 40.9% and 22.0%, respectively; and the negative predictive values were 94.9% and 96.7%, respectively. Our prediction model would help them make rapid decisions with better rationale. We devised a model to predict false-positive STEMI. Larger-scale validation studies are needed to validate our model, and a prospective study to determine whether this model is effective in reducing improper primary PCI in actual clinical practice should be performed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 10 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 14%
Engineering 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 14 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 July 2017.
All research outputs
#15,467,628
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#1,026
of 1,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,955
of 314,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#22
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 314,551 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.