STUDY OBJECTIVE: We assess the methodological quality and prognostic accuracy of clinical decision rules in emergency department (ED) syncope patients. METHODS: We searched 6 electronic databases, reviewed reference lists of included studies, and contacted content experts to identify articles for review. Studies that derived or validated clinical decision rules in ED syncope patients were included. Two reviewers independently screened records for relevance, selected studies for inclusion, assessed study quality, and abstracted data. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool diagnostic performance estimates across studies that derived or validated the same clinical decision rule. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed with the I(2) statistic, and subgroup hypotheses were tested with a test of interaction. RESULTS: We identified 18 eligible studies. Deficiencies in outcome (blinding) and interrater reliability assessment were the most common methodological weaknesses. Meta-analysis of the San Francisco Syncope Rule (sensitivity 86% [95% confidence interval {CI} 83% to 89%]; specificity 49% [95% CI 48% to 51%]) and the Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope nel Lazio risk score (sensitivity 95% [95% CI 88% to 98%]; specificity 31% [95% CI 29% to 34%]). Subgroup analysis identified study design (prospective, diagnostic odds ratio 8.82 [95% CI 3.5 to 22] versus retrospective, diagnostic odds ratio 2.45 [95% CI 0.96 to 6.21]) and ECG determination (by evaluating physician, diagnostic odds ratio 25.5 [95% CI 4.41 to 148] versus researcher or cardiologist, diagnostic odds ratio 4 [95% CI 2.15 to 7.55]) as potential explanations for the variability in San Francisco Syncope Rule performance. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality and prognostic accuracy of clinical decision rules for syncope are limited. Differences in study design and ECG interpretation may account for the variable prognostic performance of the San Francisco Syncope Rule when validated in different practice settings.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We assess the methodological quality and prognostic accuracy of clinical decision rules in emergency department (ED) syncopepatients. METHODS: We searched 6 electronic databases, reviewed reference lists of included studies, and contacted content experts to identify articles for review. Studies that derived or validated clinical decision rules in ED syncopepatients were included. Two reviewers independently screened records for relevance, selected studies for inclusion, assessed study quality, and abstracted data. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool diagnostic performance estimates across studies that derived or validated the same clinical decision rule. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed with the I(2) statistic, and subgroup hypotheses were tested with a test of interaction. RESULTS: We identified 18 eligible studies. Deficiencies in outcome (blinding) and interrater reliability assessment were the most common methodological weaknesses. Meta-analysis of the San Francisco Syncope Rule (sensitivity 86% [95% confidence interval {CI} 83% to 89%]; specificity 49% [95% CI 48% to 51%]) and the Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope nel Lazio risk score (sensitivity 95% [95% CI 88% to 98%]; specificity 31% [95% CI 29% to 34%]). Subgroup analysis identified study design (prospective, diagnostic odds ratio 8.82 [95% CI 3.5 to 22] versus retrospective, diagnostic odds ratio 2.45 [95% CI 0.96 to 6.21]) and ECG determination (by evaluating physician, diagnostic odds ratio 25.5 [95% CI 4.41 to 148] versus researcher or cardiologist, diagnostic odds ratio 4 [95% CI 2.15 to 7.55]) as potential explanations for the variability in San Francisco Syncope Rule performance. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality and prognostic accuracy of clinical decision rules for syncope are limited. Differences in study design and ECG interpretation may account for the variable prognostic performance of the San Francisco Syncope Rule when validated in different practice settings.
Authors: James V Quinn; Ian G Stiell; Daniel A McDermott; Karen L Sellers; Michael A Kohn; George A Wells Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Afina S Glas; Jeroen G Lijmer; Martin H Prins; Gouke J Bonsel; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: P S Wells; D R Anderson; M Rodger; J S Ginsberg; C Kearon; M Gent; A G Turpie; J Bormanis; J Weitz; M Chamberlain; D Bowie; D Barnes; J Hirsh Journal: Thromb Haemost Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 5.249
Authors: François P Sarasin; Barbara H Hanusa; Thomas Perneger; Martine Louis-Simonet; Anand Rajeswaran; Wishwa N Kapoor Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Giorgio Costantino; Benjamin C Sun; Franca Barbic; Ilaria Bossi; Giovanni Casazza; Franca Dipaola; Daniel McDermott; James Quinn; Matthew J Reed; Robert S Sheldon; Monica Solbiati; Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy; Daniel Beach; Nicolai Bodemer; Michele Brignole; Ivo Casagranda; Attilio Del Rosso; Piergiorgio Duca; Greta Falavigna; Shamai A Grossman; Roberto Ippoliti; Andrew D Krahn; Nicola Montano; Carlos A Morillo; Brian Olshansky; Satish R Raj; Martin H Ruwald; Francois P Sarasin; Win-Kuang Shen; Ian Stiell; Andrea Ungar; J Gert van Dijk; Nynke van Dijk; Wouter Wieling; Raffaello Furlan Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Ramon T Saccilotto; Christian H Nickel; Heiner C Bucher; Ewout W Steyerberg; Roland Bingisser; Michael T Koller Journal: CMAJ Date: 2011-09-26 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Giorgio Costantino; Martin H Ruwald; James Quinn; Carlos A Camargo; Frederik Dalgaard; Gunnar Gislason; Tadahiro Goto; Kohei Hasegawa; Padma Kaul; Nicola Montano; Anna-Karin Numé; Antonio Russo; Robert Sheldon; Monica Solbiati; Benjamin Sun; Giovanni Casazza Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 21.873