↓ Skip to main content

A retrospective external validation study of the HEART score among patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain

Overview of attention for article published in Internal and Emergency Medicine, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
A retrospective external validation study of the HEART score among patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain
Published in
Internal and Emergency Medicine, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11739-017-1743-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew Jay Streitz, Joshua James Oliver, Jessica Marie Hyams, Richard Michael Wood, Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich Maksimenko, Brit Long, Robert Michael Barnwell, Michael David April

Abstract

Emergency physicians must be able to effectively prognosticate outcomes for patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) with chest pain. The HEART score offers a prognostication tool, but external validation studies are limited. We conducted an external retrospective validation study of the HEART score among ED patients presenting to our ED with chest pain from 1 January 2014 to 9 June 2014. We utilized chart review methodology to abstract data from each patient's electronic medical record. We collected data relevant to each of the five elements of the HEART score: history, electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation, patient age, patient risk factors, and troponin levels. We calculated the diagnostic accuracy of the HEART score (0-10) for predicting the primary outcome of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over 6 weeks following the ED visit (coronary revascularization, myocardial infarction, or mortality). We randomly selected 10% of patient charts from which a second investigator abstracted all data to assess inter-rater reliability for all study variables. Of 625 charts reviewed, we abstracted data on 417 (66.7%) consecutive patients meeting study inclusion criteria. Thirty-one (7.4%) of these patients experienced 6-week MACE. We observed no instances of MACE within 6 weeks among subjects with a HEART score of 3 or less. The area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) is 0.885 (95% confidence interval 0.838-0.931). Patients with a HEART score ≤3 are at low risk for 6-week MACE. Hence, these patients may be candidates for outpatient follow-up instead of inpatient admission for cardiac risk stratification.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 17%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Engineering 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 16 31%
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 13 September 2017.
All research outputs
#15,478,452
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#579
of 952 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,408
of 316,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 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 952 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 316,063 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 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.