Literature DB >> 26500322

Chest pain for coronary heart disease in general practice: clinical judgement and a clinical decision rule.

Jörg Haasenritter1, Norbert Donner-Banzhoff1, Stefan Bösner1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Marburg Heart Score (MHS) is a simple, valid, and robust clinical decision rule assisting GPs in ruling out coronary heart disease (CHD) in patients presenting with chest pain. AIM: To investigate whether using the rule adds to the GP's clinical judgement. DESIGN AND
SETTING: A comparative diagnostic accuracy study was conducted using data from 832 consecutive patients with chest pain in general practice.
METHOD: Three diagnostic strategies were defined using the MHS: diagnosis based solely on the MHS; using the MHS as a triage test; and GP's clinical judgement aided by the MHS. Their accuracy was compared with the GPs' unaided clinical judgement.
RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity of the GPs' unaided clinical judgement was 82.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 72.4 to 89.9) and 61.0% (95% CI = 56.7 to 65.2), respectively. In comparison, the sensitivity of the MHS was higher (difference 8.5%, 95% CI = -2.4 to 19.6) and the specificity was similar (difference -0.4%, 95% CI = -5.3 to 4.5); the sensitivity of the triage was similar (difference -1.5%, 95% CI = -9.8 to 7.0) and the specificity was higher (difference 11.6%, 95% CI = 7.8 to 15.4); and both the sensitivity and specificity of the aided clinical judgement were higher (difference 8.0%, 95% CI = -6.9 to 23.0 and 5.8%, 95% CI = -1.6 to 13.2, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Using the Marburg Heart Score for initial triage can improve the clinical diagnosis of CHD in general practice. © British Journal of General Practice 2015.

Entities:  

Keywords:  chest pain; medical history taking; myocardial ischaemia; primary health care; sensitivity and specificity

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26500322      PMCID: PMC4617269          DOI: 10.3399/bjgp15X687385

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


  21 in total

Review 1.  AHRQ White Paper: Use of clinical decision rules for point-of-care decision support.

Authors:  Mark Ebell
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 2.  A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard.

Authors:  Johannes B Reitsma; Anne W S Rutjes; Khalid S Khan; Arri Coomarasamy; Patrick M Bossuyt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-05-17       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Risks and benefits of cardiac imaging: an analysis of risks related to imaging for coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Juhani Knuuti; Frank Bengel; Jeroen J Bax; Philipp A Kaufmann; Dominique Le Guludec; Pasquale Perrone Filardi; Claudio Marcassa; Nina Ajmone Marsan; Stephan Achenbach; Anastasia Kitsiou; Albert Flotats; Eric Eeckhout; Heikki Minn; Birger Hesse
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2013-12-29       Impact factor: 29.983

4.  Appropriate statistical methods are required to assess diagnostic tests for replacement, add-on, and triage.

Authors:  Andrew Hayen; Petra Macaskill; Les Irwig; Patrick Bossuyt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-01-15       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods.

Authors:  R G Newcombe
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-04-30       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: differences by age.

Authors:  R H Mehta; S S Rathore; M J Radford; Y Wang; Y Wang; H M Krumholz
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 24.094

7.  Chest pain in daily practice: occurrence, causes and management.

Authors:  François Verdon; Lilli Herzig; Bernard Burnand; Thomas Bischoff; Alain Pécoud; Michel Junod; Nicole Mühlemann; Bernard Favrat
Journal:  Swiss Med Wkly       Date:  2008-06-14       Impact factor: 2.193

8.  Incidence and prognosis of unrecognized myocardial infarction. An update on the Framingham study.

Authors:  W B Kannel; R D Abbott
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1984-11-01       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  NICE guidance. Chest pain of recent onset: assessment and diagnosis of recent onset chest pain or discomfort of suspected cardiac origin.

Authors:  Jane S Skinner; Liam Smeeth; Jason M Kendall; Philip C Adams; Adam Timmis
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 10.  Use of expert panels to define the reference standard in diagnostic research: a systematic review of published methods and reporting.

Authors:  Loes C M Bertens; Berna D L Broekhuizen; Christiana A Naaktgeboren; Frans H Rutten; Arno W Hoes; Yvonne van Mourik; Karel G M Moons; Johannes B Reitsma
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2013-10-15       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  8 in total

1.  A Nationwide Flash-Mob Study for Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Authors:  Angel M R Schols; Robert T A Willemsen; Tobias N Bonten; Martijn H Rutten; Patricia M Stassen; Bas L J H Kietselaer; Geert-Jan Dinant; Jochen W L Cals
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 5.166

2.  Chest discomfort at night and risk of acute coronary syndrome: cross-sectional study of telephone conversations.

Authors:  Loes T Wouters; Dorien L Zwart; Daphne C Erkelens; Noël S Cheung; Esther de Groot; Roger A Damoiseaux; Arno W Hoes; Frans H Rutten
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2020-09-05       Impact factor: 2.267

3.  The conundrum of acute chest pain in general practice: a nationwide survey in The Netherlands.

Authors:  Ralf Harskamp; Petra van Peet; Jettie Bont; Suzanne Ligthart; Wim Lucassen; Henk van Weert
Journal:  BJGP Open       Date:  2018-11-28

4.  Chest pain in general practice: a systematic review of prediction rules.

Authors:  Ralf E Harskamp; Simone C Laeven; Jelle Cl Himmelreich; Wim A M Lucassen; Henk C P M van Weert
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-02-27       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Accuracy of the general practitioner's sense of alarm when confronted with dyspnoea and/or chest pain: a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Marie Barais; Emilie Fossard; Antoine Dany; Tristan Montier; Erik Stolper; Paul Van Royen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-02-18       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Performance of risk scores for coronary artery disease: a retrospective cohort study of patients with chest pain in urgent primary care.

Authors:  Michelle Kleton; Amy Manten; Iris Smits; Remco Rietveld; Wim A M Lucassen; Ralf E Harskamp
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-12-08       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Development and validation of a prediction rule for patients suspected of acute coronary syndrome in primary care: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Loes T C M Wouters; Dorien L M Zwart; Daphne C A Erkelens; Elisabeth J M Adriaansen; Hester M den Ruijter; Esther De Groot; Roger A M J Damoiseaux; Arno W Hoes; Maarten van Smeden; Frans H Rutten
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-10-05       Impact factor: 3.006

8.  Prognosis of undiagnosed chest pain: linked electronic health record cohort study.

Authors:  Kelvin P Jordan; Adam Timmis; Peter Croft; Danielle A van der Windt; Spiros Denaxas; Arturo González-Izquierdo; Richard A Hayward; Pablo Perel; Harry Hemingway
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2017-04-03
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.