Key result
A systematized approach to clinical history using new criteria for duration, respiration, movement, and position can confidently differentiate nonanginal chest pain from typical or atypical angina.
Why the study?
Does a systematized history-taking approach improve the differentiation of angina from nonanginal chest pain?
Does a systematized history-taking approach improve the differentiation of angina from nonanginal chest pain?
A systematized approach to history-taking using specific criteria can help clinicians confidently differentiate nonanginal chest pain from angina.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May aid chest pain evaluation but should not yet change practice; leaves open need for prospective validation.
For the first time an attempt has been made to systematize nonanginal pain questions so that physicians will ask the nonanginal questions and not simply divide all angina-like symptoms into the two categories of typical and atypical angina. A definite nonanginal chest pain category is defended with the possibility of avoiding diagnoses such as "atypical chest pain" or "atypical angina." Confidence in diagnosing chest pains as nonanginal can be attained if attention is paid to new criteria for duration, the effect of respiration, arm or chest movement, local compression, and body position. Because of this novel approach to the diagnosis of chest pain, it has become necessary to point out many of the pitfalls into which the unwary may fall with each nonanginal question.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
J Constant (1983) conducted a review in Nonanginal chest pain. Systematized nonanginal pain questions was evaluated. A systematized approach to clinical history using new criteria for duration, respiration, movement, and position can confidently differentiate nonanginal chest pain from typical or atypical angina.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: