↓ Skip to main content

External validation of the emergency department assessment of chest pain score accelerated diagnostic pathway (EDACS-ADP)

Overview of attention for article published in Emergency Medicine Journal, July 2016
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
External validation of the emergency department assessment of chest pain score accelerated diagnostic pathway (EDACS-ADP)
Published in
Emergency Medicine Journal, July 2016
DOI 10.1136/emermed-2015-205028
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dylan Flaws, Martin Than, Frank Xavier Scheuermeyer, James Christenson, Barbara Boychuk, Jaimi H Greenslade, Sally Aldous, Christopher J Hammett, William A Parsonage, Joanne M Deely, John W Pickering, Louise Cullen

Abstract

The emergency department assessment of chest pain score accelerated diagnostic pathway (EDACS-ADP) facilitates low-risk ED chest pain patients early to outpatient investigation. We aimed to validate this rule in a North American population. We performed a retrospective validation of the EDACS-ADP using 763 chest pain patients who presented to St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada, between June 2000 and January 2003. Patients were classified as low risk if they had an EDACS <16, no new ischaemia on ECG and non-elevated serial 0-hour and 2-hour cardiac troponin concentrations. The primary outcome was the number of patients who had a predetermined major adverse cardiac event (MACE) at 30 days after presentation. Of the 763 patients, 317 (41.6%) were classified as low risk by the EDACS-ADP. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value of the EDACS-ADP for 30-day MACE were 100% (95% CI 94.2% to 100%), 46.4% (95% CI 42.6% to 50.2%), 100% (95% CI 98.5% to 100.0%) and 17.5% (95% CI 14.1% to 21.3%), respectively. This study validated the EDACS-ADP in a novel context and supports its safe use in a North American population. It confirms that EDACS-ADP can facilitate progression to early outpatient investigation in up to 40% of ED chest pain patients within 2 hours.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 18 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Psychology 2 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Engineering 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 25 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 25 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,290,269
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Emergency Medicine Journal
#400
of 4,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,468
of 356,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emergency Medicine Journal
#14
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,397 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 356,575 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.