ArticleMedical sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Evaluating the Efficacy of CPS, HEART and TIMI Score in Emergency Department Patients with Non-Traumatic Chest Pain: A Pilot Study.
Article in Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Application of HEART, GRACE 2.0 and TIMI scores for risk stratification of chest pain: a single-centre external pilot study in a Sri Lankan population.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimThe correct identification of patients presenting with chest pain and the stratification of their risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) is essential. The aim of this study was to evaluate subjects who came to the ED for chest pain through the chest pain score, the HEART score and the TIMI risk score in order to assess their validity and prognostic accuracy and to compare their performance.
methodsPatients included in the study met the following criteria: age ≥18 years, reported atraumatic chest pain, and consent to participate in the clinical study. Subsequently, the final scores were calculated based on the information collected and a follow-up was performed to assess the occurrence of adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) at 30 days. The MACEs considered were a composite endpoint of STEMI or NSTEMI myocardial infarction, positive coronary angiography for critical lesions, percutaneous coronary angioplasty, coronary artery bypass grafting, and death.
resultsA total of 102 patients were included in the study sample, divided into 76 patients who did not develop MACEs and 26 patients who experienced MACEs. The AUC values of the ROC curves of the chest pain score, HEART score and TIMI risk score were 0.8312, 0.9757 and 0.9378 respectively.
conclusionsAll three scores examined were considered excellent tools to predict the onset of MACEs in patients with chest pain at different points of clinical management, although the HEART score outperformed both the chest pain score and the TIMI risk score in terms of prognostic accuracy.
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.