↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Acute chest pain fast track at the emergency department: who was misdiagnosed for acute coronary syndrome?

Overview of attention for article published in Open access emergency medicine OAEM, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Acute chest pain fast track at the emergency department: who was misdiagnosed for acute coronary syndrome?
Published in
Open access emergency medicine OAEM, December 2016
DOI 10.2147/oaem.s112903
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thidathit Prachanukool, Kasamon Aramvanitch, Kittisak Sawanyawisuth, Yuwares Sitthichanbuncha

Abstract

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is a commonly treated disease in the emergency department (ED). Acute chest pain is a common presenting symptom of ACS. Acute chest pain fast track (ACPFT) is a triage to cover patients presenting with chest pain with the aims of early detection and treatment for ACS. This study aimed to assess the quality of the ACPFT with the aim of improving the quality of care for ACS patients. This study was conducted at the ED in Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. The inclusion criterion was patients presenting with acute chest pain at the ED. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all eligible patients. The primary outcomes of this study were to determine time from door to electrocardiogram and time from door to treatment (coronary angiogram with percutaneous coronary intervention or thrombolytic therapy in the case of ST elevation myocardial infarction). The outcome was compared between those who were in and not in the ACPFT. During the study period, there were 616 eligible patients who were divided into ACPFT (n=352 patients; 57.1%) and non-ACPFT (n=264 patients; 42.9%) groups. In the ACPFT group (n=352), 315 patients (89.5%) received an electrocardiogram within 10 minutes. The final diagnosis of ACS was made in 80 patients (22.7%) in the ACPFT group and 13 patients (4.9%) in the non-ACPFT group (P-value <0.01). After adjustment using multivariate logistic regression analysis, only epigastric pain was independently associated with being in the ACPFT group (adjusted odds ratio of 0.11; 95% confidence interval of 0.02, 0.56). The ACPFT at the ED facilitated the prompt work-ups and intervention for ACS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 34 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Professor 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 13 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 20%
Engineering 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 15 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 December 2016.
All research outputs
#20,823,121
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Open access emergency medicine OAEM
#173
of 224 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#314,653
of 417,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open access emergency medicine OAEM
#5
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 417,676 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.