Cargando…

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

OBJECTIVE: To identify and assess the performance of clinical decision rules (CDR) for chest pain in general practice. DESIGN: Systematic review of diagnostic studies. DATA SOURCES: Medline/Pubmed, Embase/Ovid, CINAHL/EBSCO and Google Scholar up to October 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that assesse...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Harskamp, Ralf E, Laeven, Simone C, Himmelreich, Jelle CL, Lucassen, Wim A M, van Weert, Henk C P M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6398621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30819715
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027081
_version_ 1783399608944164864
author Harskamp, Ralf E
Laeven, Simone C
Himmelreich, Jelle CL
Lucassen, Wim A M
van Weert, Henk C P M
author_facet Harskamp, Ralf E
Laeven, Simone C
Himmelreich, Jelle CL
Lucassen, Wim A M
van Weert, Henk C P M
author_sort Harskamp, Ralf E
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To identify and assess the performance of clinical decision rules (CDR) for chest pain in general practice. DESIGN: Systematic review of diagnostic studies. DATA SOURCES: Medline/Pubmed, Embase/Ovid, CINAHL/EBSCO and Google Scholar up to October 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that assessed CDRs for intermittent-type chest pain and for rule out of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) applicable in general practice, thus not relying on advanced laboratory, computer or diagnostic testing. REVIEW METHODS: Reviewers identified studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence (using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2)), independently and in duplicate. RESULTS: Eight studies comprising five CDRs met the inclusion criteria. Three CDRs are designed for rule out of coronary disease in intermittent-type chest pain (Gencer rule, Marburg Heart Score, INTERCHEST), and two for rule out of ACS (Grijseels rule, Bruins Slot rule). Studies that examined the Marburg Heart Score had the highest methodological quality with consistent sensitivity (86%–91%), specificity (61%–81%) and positive (23%–35%) and negative (97%–98%) predictive values (PPV and NPV). The diagnostic performance of Gencer (PPV: 20%–34%, NPV: 95%–99%) and INTERCHEST (PPV: 35%–43%, NPV: 96%–98%) appear comparable, but requires further validation. The Marburg Heart Score was more sensitive in detecting coronary disease than the clinical judgement of the general practitioner. The performance of CDRs that focused on rule out of ACS were: Grijseels rule (sensitivity: 91%, specificity: 37%, PPV: 57%, NPV: 82%) and Bruins Slot (sensitivity: 97%, specificity: 10%, PPV: 23%, NPV: 92%). Compared with clinical judgement, the Bruins Slot rule appeared to be safer than clinical judgement alone, but the study was limited in sample size. CONCLUSIONS: In general practice, there is currently no clinical decision aid that can safely rule out ACS. For intermittent chest pain, several rules exist, of which the Marburg Heart Score has been most extensively tested and appears to outperform clinical judgement alone.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6398621
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63986212019-03-20 Chest pain in general practice: a systematic review of prediction rules Harskamp, Ralf E Laeven, Simone C Himmelreich, Jelle CL Lucassen, Wim A M van Weert, Henk C P M BMJ Open Cardiovascular Medicine OBJECTIVE: To identify and assess the performance of clinical decision rules (CDR) for chest pain in general practice. DESIGN: Systematic review of diagnostic studies. DATA SOURCES: Medline/Pubmed, Embase/Ovid, CINAHL/EBSCO and Google Scholar up to October 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that assessed CDRs for intermittent-type chest pain and for rule out of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) applicable in general practice, thus not relying on advanced laboratory, computer or diagnostic testing. REVIEW METHODS: Reviewers identified studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence (using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2)), independently and in duplicate. RESULTS: Eight studies comprising five CDRs met the inclusion criteria. Three CDRs are designed for rule out of coronary disease in intermittent-type chest pain (Gencer rule, Marburg Heart Score, INTERCHEST), and two for rule out of ACS (Grijseels rule, Bruins Slot rule). Studies that examined the Marburg Heart Score had the highest methodological quality with consistent sensitivity (86%–91%), specificity (61%–81%) and positive (23%–35%) and negative (97%–98%) predictive values (PPV and NPV). The diagnostic performance of Gencer (PPV: 20%–34%, NPV: 95%–99%) and INTERCHEST (PPV: 35%–43%, NPV: 96%–98%) appear comparable, but requires further validation. The Marburg Heart Score was more sensitive in detecting coronary disease than the clinical judgement of the general practitioner. The performance of CDRs that focused on rule out of ACS were: Grijseels rule (sensitivity: 91%, specificity: 37%, PPV: 57%, NPV: 82%) and Bruins Slot (sensitivity: 97%, specificity: 10%, PPV: 23%, NPV: 92%). Compared with clinical judgement, the Bruins Slot rule appeared to be safer than clinical judgement alone, but the study was limited in sample size. CONCLUSIONS: In general practice, there is currently no clinical decision aid that can safely rule out ACS. For intermittent chest pain, several rules exist, of which the Marburg Heart Score has been most extensively tested and appears to outperform clinical judgement alone. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-02-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6398621/ /pubmed/30819715 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027081 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Cardiovascular Medicine
Harskamp, Ralf E
Laeven, Simone C
Himmelreich, Jelle CL
Lucassen, Wim A M
van Weert, Henk C P M
Chest pain in general practice: a systematic review of prediction rules
title Chest pain in general practice: a systematic review of prediction rules
title_full Chest pain in general practice: a systematic review of prediction rules
title_fullStr Chest pain in general practice: a systematic review of prediction rules
title_full_unstemmed Chest pain in general practice: a systematic review of prediction rules
title_short Chest pain in general practice: a systematic review of prediction rules
title_sort chest pain in general practice: a systematic review of prediction rules
topic Cardiovascular Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6398621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30819715
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027081
work_keys_str_mv AT harskampralfe chestpainingeneralpracticeasystematicreviewofpredictionrules
AT laevensimonec chestpainingeneralpracticeasystematicreviewofpredictionrules
AT himmelreichjellecl chestpainingeneralpracticeasystematicreviewofpredictionrules
AT lucassenwimam chestpainingeneralpracticeasystematicreviewofpredictionrules
AT vanweerthenkcpm chestpainingeneralpracticeasystematicreviewofpredictionrules