Key result
The Marburg Heart Score demonstrated consistent sensitivity (86%-91%) and negative predictive value (97%-98%) for intermittent chest pain, outperforming clinical judgement alone.
Why the study?
The performance of clinical decision rules for chest pain applicable in general practice needed to be identified and assessed.
Do clinical decision rules improve the diagnostic accuracy for ruling out coronary disease or ACS compared to clinical judgement in general practice patients with chest pain?
Systematic Review
Do clinical decision rules improve the diagnostic accuracy for ruling out coronary disease or ACS compared to clinical judgement in general practice patients with chest pain?
In general practice, the Marburg Heart Score outperforms clinical judgement for evaluating intermittent chest pain, but no current clinical decision rule can safely rule out ACS.
May aid ruling out cardiac events in intermittent chest pain; leaves open need for prospective outcome validation.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Harskamp et al. (2019) conducted a systematic review in Chest pain. Clinical decision rules (e.g., Marburg Heart Score) vs. Clinical judgement was evaluated on Diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV). The Marburg Heart Score demonstrated consistent sensitivity (86%-91%) and negative predictive value (97%-98%) for intermittent chest pain, outperforming clinical judgement alone.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: