Why the study?
What are the relative frequencies of different underlying etiologies of chest pain in general practice?
What are the relative frequencies of different underlying etiologies of chest pain in general practice?
Chest wall syndrome is the most common cause of chest pain in primary care, followed by cardiovascular, respiratory, and psychogenic etiologies, providing useful pre-test probabilities for general practitioners.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Provides actionable pre-test probabilities for chest pain in primary care; leaves open prospective validation across settings.
AIM: To investigate the frequencies of different and relevant underlying etiologies of chest pain in general practice. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE. Two reviewers independently rated the eligibility of publications and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We extracted data to calculate the relative frequencies of different underlying conditions and investigated the variation across studies using forest plots, I(2), tau(2), and prediction intervals. With respect to unexplained heterogeneity, we provided qualitative syntheses instead of pooled estimates. RESULTS: We identified 11 eligible studies comprising about 6500 patients. The overall risk of bias was rated as low in 6 studies comprising about 3900 patients. The relative frequencies of different conditions as the underlying etiologies of chest pain reported by these studies ranged from 24.5 to 49.8% (chest wall syndrome), 13.8 to 16.1% (cardiovascular diseases), 6.6 to 11.2% (stable coronary heart disease), 1.5 to 3.6% (acute coronary syndrome/myocardial infarction), 10.3 to 18.2% (respiratory diseases), 9.5 to 18.2% (psychogenic etiologies), 5.6 to 9.7% (gastrointestinal disorders), and 6.0 to 7.1% (esophageal disorders). CONCLUSION: This information may be of practical value for general practitioners as it provides the pre-test probabilities for a range of underlying diseases and may be suitable to guide the diagnostic process.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Haasenritter et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: