Dataset Information

Causes of chest pain in primary care--a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Haasenritter J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4655927 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNon-cardiovascular chest pain (NCCP) leads to impaired quality of life and is associated with a high disease burden. Upon ruling out cardiovascular disease, only vague recommendations exist for further treatment.ObjectivesTo summarize treatment efficacy for patients presenting with NCCP.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis. In July 2013, Medline, Web of Knowledge, Embase, EBSCOhost, Cochrane Reviews and Trials, and Scopus were searched. Hand and bibliography searches were also conducted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating non-surgical treatments in patients with NCCP were included. Exclusion criteria were poor study quality and small sample size (<10 patients per group).ResultsThirty eligible RCT's were included. Most studies assessed PPI efficacy for gastroesophageal reflux disorders (GERD, n = 10). Two RCTs included musculoskeletal chest pain, seven psychotropic drugs, and eleven various psychological interventions. Study quality was high in five RCTs and acceptable in 25. PPI treatment in patients with GERD (5 RCTs, 192 patients) was more effective than placebo [pooled OR 11.7 (95% CI 5.5 to 25.0, heterogeneity I2 = 6.1%)]. The pooled OR in GERD negative patients (4 RCTs, 156 patients) was 0.8 (95% CI 0.2 to 2.8, heterogeneity I2 = 50.4%). In musculoskeletal NCCP (2 RCTs, 229 patients) manual therapy was more effective than usual care but not than home exercise [pooled mean difference 0.5 (95% CI -0.3 to 1.3, heterogeneity I2 = 46.2%)]. The findings for cognitive behavioral treatment, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants were mixed. Most evidence was available for cognitive behavioral treatment interventions.LimitationsOnly a small number of studies were available.ConclusionsTimely diagnostic evaluation and treatment of the disease underlying NCCP is important. For patients with suspected GERD, high-dose treatment with PPI is effective. Only limited evidence was available for most prevalent diseases manifesting with chest pain. In patients with idiopathic NCCP, treatments based on cognitive behavioral principles might be considered.

Project description:IntroductionChest x-rays (CXRs) are the most frequent radiological tests performed in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, the utility of performing daily routine CXRs is unclear.MethodsWe searched Medline and Embase (1948 to March 2011) for randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and before-after observational studies comparing a strategy of routine CXRs to a more restrictive approach with CXRs performed to investigate clinical changes among critically ill adults or children. In duplicate, we extracted data on the CXR strategy, study quality and clinical outcomes (ICU and hospital mortality; duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU and hospital stay).ResultsNine studies (39,358 CXRs; 9,611 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Three trials (N = 870) of moderate to good quality provided information on the safety of a restrictive routine CXR strategy; only one trial systematically assessed for missed findings. Pooled data from trials showed no evidence of effect of a restrictive approach on ICU mortality (risk ratio [RR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84 to 1.28, P = 0.72; two trials, N = 776), hospital mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41, P = 0.91; two trials, N = 259), ICU length of stay (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.86 days, 95% CI -2.38 to 0.66 days, P = 0.27; three trials, N = 870), hospital length of stay (WMD -2.50 days, 95% CI -6.62 to 1.61 days, P = 0.23; two trials, N = 259), or duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD -0.30 days, 95% CI -1.48 to 0.89 days, P = 0.62; three trials, N = 705). Adding data from six observational studies, one of which systematically screened for missed findings, gave similar results.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis did not detect any harm associated with a restrictive chest radiograph strategy. However, confidence intervals were wide and harm was not rigorously assessed. Therefore, the safety of abandoning routine CXRs in patients admitted to the ICU remains uncertain.

Project description:IntroductionPossible dementia is usually identified in primary care by general practitioners (GPs) who refer to specialists for diagnosis. Only two-thirds of dementia cases are currently recorded in primary care, so increasing the proportion of cases diagnosed is a strategic priority for the UK and internationally. Variables in the primary care record may indicate risk of developing dementia, and could be combined in a predictive model to help find patients who are missing a diagnosis. We conducted a meta-analysis to identify clinical entities with potential for use in such a predictive model for dementia in primary care.Methods and findingsWe conducted a systematic search in PubMed, Web of Science and primary care database bibliographies. We included cohort or case-control studies which used routinely collected primary care data, to measure the association between any clinical entity and dementia. Meta-analyses were performed to pool odds ratios. A sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of non-independence of cases between studies. From a sift of 3836 papers, 20 studies, all European, were eligible for inclusion, comprising >1 million patients. 75 clinical entities were assessed as risk factors for all cause dementia, Alzheimer's (AD) and Vascular dementia (VaD). Data included were unexpectedly heterogeneous, and assumptions were made about definitions of clinical entities and timing as these were not all well described. Meta-analysis showed that neuropsychiatric symptoms including depression, anxiety, and seizures, cognitive symptoms, and history of stroke, were positively associated with dementia. Cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, heart disease, dyslipidaemia and diabetes were positively associated with VaD and negatively with AD. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results.ConclusionsThese findings are of potential value in guiding feature selection for a risk prediction tool for dementia in primary care. Limitations include findings being UK-focussed. Further predictive entities ascertainable from primary care data, such as changes in consulting patterns, were absent from the literature and should also be explored in future studies.

Project description:BACKGROUND: In many countries, substitution of physicians by nurses has become common due to the shortage of physicians and the need for high-quality, affordable care, especially for chronic and multi-morbid patients. We examined the evidence on the clinical effectiveness and care costs of physician-nurse substitution in primary care. METHODS: We systematically searched OVID Medline and Embase, The Cochrane Library and CINAHL, up to August 2012; selected and critically appraised published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared nurse-led care with care by primary care physicians on patient satisfaction, Quality of Life (QoL), hospital admission, mortality and costs of healthcare. We assessed the individual study risk of bias, calculated the study-specific and pooled relative risks (RR) or standardised mean differences (SMD); and performed fixed-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: 24 RCTs (38,974 participants) and 2 economic studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooled analyses showed higher overall scores of patient satisfaction with nurse-led care (SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.23), in RCTs of single contact or urgent care, short (less than 6 months) follow-up episodes and in small trials (N???200). Nurse-led care was effective at reducing the overall risk of hospital admission (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91), mortality (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96), in RCTs of on-going or non-urgent care, longer (at least 12 months) follow-up episodes and in larger (N?>?200) RCTs. Higher quality RCTs (with better allocation concealment and less attrition) showed higher rates of hospital admissions and mortality with nurse-led care albeit less or not significant. The results seemed more consistent across nurse practitioners than with registered or licensed nurses. The effects of nurse-led care on QoL and costs were difficult to interpret due to heterogeneous outcome reporting, valuation of resources and the small number of studies. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence continues to be limited by the quality of the research considered. Nurse-led care seems to have a positive effect on patient satisfaction, hospital admission and mortality. This important finding should be confirmed and the determinants of this effect should be assessed in further, larger and more methodically rigorous research.

Project description:BackgroundMultimorbidity is increasingly prevalent and represents a major challenge in primary care. Patients with multimorbidity are potentially more likely to experience safety incidents due to the complexity of their needs and frequency of their interactions with health services. However, rigorous syntheses of the link between patient safety incidents and multimorbidity are not available. This review examined the relationship between multimorbidity and patient safety incidents in primary care.MethodsWe followed our published protocol (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42014007434). Medline, Embase and CINAHL were searched up to May 2015. Study design and quality were assessed. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated for the associations between multimorbidity and two categories of patient safety outcomes: 'active patient safety incidents' (such as adverse drug events and medical complications) and 'precursors of safety incidents' (such as prescription errors, medication non-adherence, poor quality of care and diagnostic errors). Meta-analyses using random effects models were undertaken.ResultsEighty six relevant comparisons from 75 studies were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis demonstrated that physical-mental multimorbidity was associated with an increased risk for 'active patient safety incidents' (OR = 2.39, 95% CI = 1.40 to 3.38) and 'precursors of safety incidents' (OR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.36 to 2.03). Physical multimorbidity was associated with an increased risk for active safety incidents (OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.45 to 1.80) but was not associated with precursors of safety incidents (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.90 to 1.13). Statistical heterogeneity was high and the methodological quality of the studies was generally low.ConclusionsThe association between multimorbidity and patient safety is complex, and varies by type of multimorbidity and type of safety incident. Our analyses suggest that multimorbidity involving mental health may be a key driver of safety incidents, which has important implication for the design and targeting of interventions to improve safety. High quality studies examining the mechanisms of patient safety incidents in patients with multimorbidity are needed, with the goal of promoting effective service delivery and ameliorating threats to safety in this group of patients.