MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399504810 · doi:10.1111/acem.14943

Serious outcomes among emergency department patients with presyncope: A systematic review

2024· review· en· W4399504810 on OpenAlexaff
Hadi Mirfazaelian, Ian G. Stiell, Rasoul Masoomi, Khazar Garjani, Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresyncopeMedicineEmergency departmentStroke (engine)PediatricsRetrospective cohort studyMEDLINEEmergency medicineInternal medicinePsychiatryBlood pressureHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Syncope is transient loss of consciousness, and in presyncope, patients experience same prodromal symptoms without losing consciousness. While studies have extensively reported the risk of serious outcome among emergency department (ED) syncope, the outcome for patients with presyncope and their management are not well studied. We undertook a systematic review to assess the occurrence/identification of short-term (30-day) serious outcomes among ED patients with presyncope. METHODS: ED studies that enrolled patients with presyncope and reported any short-term serious outcome were included. Studies that enrolled patients without presyncope (e.g., hypoglycemia, seizure, and stroke) were excluded. We restricted our study to only English publications and searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science from the inception date to July 2023. We used SIGN 50 tool for assessment of risk of bias. RESULTS: In total, 1788 articles were screened by two reviewers and 32 articles were selected for full-text assessment. Five (four prospective and one retrospective) studies with 2741 presyncope patients were included. Four studies were from North America and the fifth one was from Europe. Included studies had weaknesses due to risk of bias, but all had acceptable quality. The prevalence of overall adverse outcome varied 4.4%-26.8% for all adults and 5.5%-18.7% among older patients; arrhythmia was the most prevalent (17.4% in one study), followed by anemia/hemorrhage as reported in different studies. Among older patients, myocardial infarction was the third most common serious outcome reported in one study. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of short-term serious outcomes varies from 4% to 27% among ED patients with presyncope in our review, with arrhythmia being the most common serious outcome. Our review indicates that presyncope may carry a similar risk to syncope, and hence, the same level of caution should be exercised for ED presyncope management as syncope.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Emergency MedicineSame topicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersFrench-language works237,207