↓ Skip to main content

A Clinical Decision Rule to Identify Emergency Department Patients at Low Risk for Acute Coronary Syndrome Who Do Not Need Objective Coronary Artery Disease Testing: The No Objective Testing Rule

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Emergency Medicine, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
A Clinical Decision Rule to Identify Emergency Department Patients at Low Risk for Acute Coronary Syndrome Who Do Not Need Objective Coronary Artery Disease Testing: The No Objective Testing Rule
Published in
Annals of Emergency Medicine, September 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.08.006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jaimi H. Greenslade, William Parsonage, Martin Than, Adam Scott, Sally Aldous, John W. Pickering, Christopher J. Hammett, Louise Cullen

Abstract

We derive a clinical decision rule for ongoing investigation of patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain. The rule identifies patients who are at low risk of acute coronary syndrome and could be discharged without further cardiac testing. This was a prospective observational study of 2,396 patients who presented to 2 EDs with chest pain suggestive of acute coronary syndrome and had normal troponin and ECG results 2 hours after presentation. Research nurses collected clinical data on presentation, and the primary endpoint was diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome within 30 days of presentation to the ED. Logistic regression analyses were conducted on 50 bootstrapped samples to identify predictors of acute coronary syndrome. A rule was derived and diagnostic accuracy statistics were computed. Acute coronary syndrome was diagnosed in 126 (5.3%) patients. Regression analyses identified the following predictors of acute coronary syndrome: cardiac risk factors, age, sex, previous myocardial infarction, or coronary artery disease and nitrate use. A rule was derived that identified 753 low-risk patients (31.4%), with sensitivity 97.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 93.2% to 99.5%), negative predictive value 99.6% (95% CI 98.8% to 99.9%), specificity 33.0% (95% CI 31.1% to 35.0%), and positive predictive value 7.5% (95% CI 6.3% to 8.9%) for acute coronary syndrome. This was referred to as the no objective testing rule. We have derived a clinical decision rule for chest pain patients with negative early cardiac biomarker and ECG testing results that identifies 31% at low risk and who may not require objective testing for coronary artery disease. A prospective trial is required to confirm these findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Other 5 8%
Other 15 23%
Unknown 16 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Engineering 3 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Decision Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 19 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 12 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,138,649
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#1,757
of 6,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,746
of 279,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#38
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,822 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 279,272 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.