ArticleBMC primary care2024
Incidence of primary care chest pain consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic: an interrupted time series analysis with routine care data.
Article in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 lockdown had profound effects on society and healthcare. Cardiology departments reported declines in chest pain evaluations and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) diagnoses. However, the pattern of chest pain in primary care is not clear yet. This study aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on the number of patients presenting with chest pain in primary care.
methodsRoutine primary care data from the Extramural LUMC (Leiden University Medical Center) Academic Network (ELAN) in the Netherlands were used. Chest pain consultations from January 2017 to December 2020 were included. An interrupted time series analysis was performed to compare the incidence rate (IR) of chest pain consultations during the COVID-19 lockdown to the expected IR. Secondary outcomes were the type of consultations, referral proportions, and the IR of registered ACS diagnoses.
resultsIn total 9,908 chest pain consultations were included. During the COVID-19 lockdown the IR was 6.16 per 1000 person-years while the expected IR was 7.55 (95% CI 7.03-8.12). The immediate effect of the lockdown yielded an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.62 (95% CI 0.50-0.77). A similar decrease was seen for ACS diagnoses (IRR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48-0.79), with no compensatory increase after the lockdown (IRR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89-1.21). Face-to-face consultations shifted to telephone consultations (p < 0.001) and hospital referrals decreased (9.9% vs. 19.0% (p < 0.001)).
conclusionsDuring the COVID-19 lockdown the number of chest pain consultations and registered ACS diagnoses in primary care decreased significantly. In addition, fewer patients were assessed face-to-face and fewer patients were referred to the hospital.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.