Does the patient with chest pain have a coronary heart disease? Diagnostic value of single symptoms and signs – a meta-analysis
Authors:
- Jörg HaasenritterJHJörg Haasenritter
- Damaris StanzeDSDamaris Stanze
- Grit WideraGWGrit Widera
- Christian WilimzigCWChristian Wilimzig
- Maren Abu HaniMHMaren Abu Hani
- Andreas C SönnichsenASAndreas C Sönnichsen
- Stefan BösnerSBStefan Bösner
- Justine RochonJRJustine Rochon
- Norbert Donner-BanzhoffNDNorbert Donner-Banzhoff
Open Access
- 1 October 2012
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Croatian Medical Journals in Croatian Medical Journal
- Vol. 53 (5) , 432-441
Abstract
To determine the diagnostic value of single symptoms and signs for coronary heart disease (CHD) in patients with chest pain. Searches of two electronic databases (EMBASE 1980 to March 2008, PubMed 1966 to May 2009) and hand searching in seven journals were conducted. Eligible studies recruited patients presenting with acute or chronic chest pain. The target disease was CHD, with no restrictions regarding case definitions, eg, stable CHD, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), acute myocardial infarction (MI), or major cardiac event (MCE). Diagnostic tests of interest were items of medical history and physical examination. Bivariate random effects model was used to derive summary estimates of positive (pLR) and negative likelihood ratios (nLR). We included 172 studies providing data on the diagnostic value of 42 symptoms and signs. With respect to case definition of CHD, diagnostically most useful tests were history of CHD (pLR=3.59), known MI (pLR=3.21), typical angina (pLR=2.35), history of diabetes mellitus (pLR=2.16), exertional pain (pLR=2.13), history of angina pectoris (nLR=0.42), and male sex (nLR=0.49) for diagnosing stable CHD; pain radiation to right arm/shoulder (pLR=4.43) and palpitation (pLR=0.47) for diagnosing MI; visceral pain (pLR=2.05) for diagnosing ACS; and typical angina (pLR=2.60) and pain reproducible by palpation (pLR=0.13) for predicting MCE. We comprehensively reported the accuracy of a broad spectrum of single symptoms and signs for diagnosing myocardial ischemia. Our results suggested that the accuracy of several symptoms and signs varied in the published studies according to the case definition of CHD.Keywords
This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit:
- Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test AccuracyAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2008
- An empirical comparison of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy showed hierarchical models are necessaryJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2008
- Signs and symptoms in diagnosing acute myocardial infarction and acute coronary syndrome: a diagnostic meta-analysisBritish Journal of General Practice, 2008
- Systematic review: Accuracy of body mass index in predicting pre‐eclampsia: bivariate meta‐analysisBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 2007
- Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studiesBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2006
- Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviewsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2005
- A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracyHealth Technology Assessment, 2005
- Bedside diagnosis of coronary artery disease: A systematic reviewThe American Journal of Medicine, 2004
- Systematic review and modelling of the investigation of acute and chronic chest pain presenting in primary careHealth Technology Assessment, 2004
- Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelinesBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2002