Syncope risk stratification tools vs clinical judgment: An individual patient data meta-analysis

Giorgio Costantino, Giovanni Casazza, Matthew Reed, Ilaria Bossi, Benjamin Sun, Attilio Del Rosso, Andrea Ungar, Shamai Grossman, Fabrizio D'Ascenzo, James Quinn, Daniel McDermott, Robert Sheldon, Raffaello Furlan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

47 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There have been several attempts to derive syncope prediction tools to guide clinician decision-making. However, they have not been largely adopted, possibly because of their lack of sensitivity and specifi city. We sought to externally validate the existing tools and to compare them with clinical judgment, using an individual patient data meta-analysis approach. METHODS: Electronic databases, bibliographies, and experts in the field were screened to find all prospective studies enrolling consecutive subjects presenting with syncope to the emergency department. Prediction tools and clinical judgment were applied to all patients in each dataset. Serious outcomes and death were considered separately during emergency department stay and at 10 and 30 days after presenting syncope. Pooled sensitivities, specificities, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios, with 95% confidence intervals, were calculated. RESULTS: Thirteen potentially relevant papers were retrieved (11 authors). Six authors agreed to share individual patient data. In total, 3681 patients were included. Three prediction tools (Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope del Lazio [OESIL], San Francisco Syncope Rule [SFSR], Evaluation of Guidelines in Syncope Study [EGSYS]) could be assessed by the available datasets. None of the evaluated prediction tools performed better than clinical judgment in identifying serious outcomes during emergency department stay, and at 10 and 30 days after syncope. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the use of an individual patient data approach to reduce heterogeneity among studies, a large variability was still present. Current prediction tools did not show better sensitivity, specificity, or prognostic yield compared with clinical judgment in predicting short-term serious outcome after syncope. Our systematic review strengthens the evidence that current prediction tools should not be strictly used in clinical practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1126.e13-1126.e25
JournalAmerican Journal of Medicine
Volume127
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2014

Fingerprint

Syncope
Meta-Analysis
Hospital Emergency Service
Sensitivity and Specificity
San Francisco
Bibliography
Decision Making
Odds Ratio
Databases
Prospective Studies
Guidelines
Confidence Intervals

Keywords

  • Individual patient data
  • Meta-analysis
  • Prognosis
  • Risk-stratification tools
  • Rules
  • Syncope

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Costantino, G., Casazza, G., Reed, M., Bossi, I., Sun, B., Del Rosso, A., ... Furlan, R. (2014). Syncope risk stratification tools vs clinical judgment: An individual patient data meta-analysis. American Journal of Medicine, 127(11), 1126.e13-1126.e25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.05.022

Syncope risk stratification tools vs clinical judgment : An individual patient data meta-analysis. / Costantino, Giorgio; Casazza, Giovanni; Reed, Matthew; Bossi, Ilaria; Sun, Benjamin; Del Rosso, Attilio; Ungar, Andrea; Grossman, Shamai; D'Ascenzo, Fabrizio; Quinn, James; McDermott, Daniel; Sheldon, Robert; Furlan, Raffaello.

In: American Journal of Medicine, Vol. 127, No. 11, 01.11.2014, p. 1126.e13-1126.e25.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Costantino, G, Casazza, G, Reed, M, Bossi, I, Sun, B, Del Rosso, A, Ungar, A, Grossman, S, D'Ascenzo, F, Quinn, J, McDermott, D, Sheldon, R & Furlan, R 2014, 'Syncope risk stratification tools vs clinical judgment: An individual patient data meta-analysis', American Journal of Medicine, vol. 127, no. 11, pp. 1126.e13-1126.e25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.05.022
Costantino, Giorgio ; Casazza, Giovanni ; Reed, Matthew ; Bossi, Ilaria ; Sun, Benjamin ; Del Rosso, Attilio ; Ungar, Andrea ; Grossman, Shamai ; D'Ascenzo, Fabrizio ; Quinn, James ; McDermott, Daniel ; Sheldon, Robert ; Furlan, Raffaello. / Syncope risk stratification tools vs clinical judgment : An individual patient data meta-analysis. In: American Journal of Medicine. 2014 ; Vol. 127, No. 11. pp. 1126.e13-1126.e25.
@article{57226fcb14fb47c9bbaab5b936900d21,
title = "Syncope risk stratification tools vs clinical judgment: An individual patient data meta-analysis",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: There have been several attempts to derive syncope prediction tools to guide clinician decision-making. However, they have not been largely adopted, possibly because of their lack of sensitivity and specifi city. We sought to externally validate the existing tools and to compare them with clinical judgment, using an individual patient data meta-analysis approach. METHODS: Electronic databases, bibliographies, and experts in the field were screened to find all prospective studies enrolling consecutive subjects presenting with syncope to the emergency department. Prediction tools and clinical judgment were applied to all patients in each dataset. Serious outcomes and death were considered separately during emergency department stay and at 10 and 30 days after presenting syncope. Pooled sensitivities, specificities, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios, with 95{\%} confidence intervals, were calculated. RESULTS: Thirteen potentially relevant papers were retrieved (11 authors). Six authors agreed to share individual patient data. In total, 3681 patients were included. Three prediction tools (Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope del Lazio [OESIL], San Francisco Syncope Rule [SFSR], Evaluation of Guidelines in Syncope Study [EGSYS]) could be assessed by the available datasets. None of the evaluated prediction tools performed better than clinical judgment in identifying serious outcomes during emergency department stay, and at 10 and 30 days after syncope. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the use of an individual patient data approach to reduce heterogeneity among studies, a large variability was still present. Current prediction tools did not show better sensitivity, specificity, or prognostic yield compared with clinical judgment in predicting short-term serious outcome after syncope. Our systematic review strengthens the evidence that current prediction tools should not be strictly used in clinical practice.",
keywords = "Individual patient data, Meta-analysis, Prognosis, Risk-stratification tools, Rules, Syncope",
author = "Giorgio Costantino and Giovanni Casazza and Matthew Reed and Ilaria Bossi and Benjamin Sun and {Del Rosso}, Attilio and Andrea Ungar and Shamai Grossman and Fabrizio D'Ascenzo and James Quinn and Daniel McDermott and Robert Sheldon and Raffaello Furlan",
year = "2014",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.05.022",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "127",
pages = "1126.e13--1126.e25",
journal = "American Journal of Medicine",
issn = "0002-9343",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Syncope risk stratification tools vs clinical judgment

T2 - An individual patient data meta-analysis

AU - Costantino, Giorgio

AU - Casazza, Giovanni

AU - Reed, Matthew

AU - Bossi, Ilaria

AU - Sun, Benjamin

AU - Del Rosso, Attilio

AU - Ungar, Andrea

AU - Grossman, Shamai

AU - D'Ascenzo, Fabrizio

AU - Quinn, James

AU - McDermott, Daniel

AU - Sheldon, Robert

AU - Furlan, Raffaello

PY - 2014/11/1

Y1 - 2014/11/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: There have been several attempts to derive syncope prediction tools to guide clinician decision-making. However, they have not been largely adopted, possibly because of their lack of sensitivity and specifi city. We sought to externally validate the existing tools and to compare them with clinical judgment, using an individual patient data meta-analysis approach. METHODS: Electronic databases, bibliographies, and experts in the field were screened to find all prospective studies enrolling consecutive subjects presenting with syncope to the emergency department. Prediction tools and clinical judgment were applied to all patients in each dataset. Serious outcomes and death were considered separately during emergency department stay and at 10 and 30 days after presenting syncope. Pooled sensitivities, specificities, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios, with 95% confidence intervals, were calculated. RESULTS: Thirteen potentially relevant papers were retrieved (11 authors). Six authors agreed to share individual patient data. In total, 3681 patients were included. Three prediction tools (Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope del Lazio [OESIL], San Francisco Syncope Rule [SFSR], Evaluation of Guidelines in Syncope Study [EGSYS]) could be assessed by the available datasets. None of the evaluated prediction tools performed better than clinical judgment in identifying serious outcomes during emergency department stay, and at 10 and 30 days after syncope. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the use of an individual patient data approach to reduce heterogeneity among studies, a large variability was still present. Current prediction tools did not show better sensitivity, specificity, or prognostic yield compared with clinical judgment in predicting short-term serious outcome after syncope. Our systematic review strengthens the evidence that current prediction tools should not be strictly used in clinical practice.

AB - BACKGROUND: There have been several attempts to derive syncope prediction tools to guide clinician decision-making. However, they have not been largely adopted, possibly because of their lack of sensitivity and specifi city. We sought to externally validate the existing tools and to compare them with clinical judgment, using an individual patient data meta-analysis approach. METHODS: Electronic databases, bibliographies, and experts in the field were screened to find all prospective studies enrolling consecutive subjects presenting with syncope to the emergency department. Prediction tools and clinical judgment were applied to all patients in each dataset. Serious outcomes and death were considered separately during emergency department stay and at 10 and 30 days after presenting syncope. Pooled sensitivities, specificities, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios, with 95% confidence intervals, were calculated. RESULTS: Thirteen potentially relevant papers were retrieved (11 authors). Six authors agreed to share individual patient data. In total, 3681 patients were included. Three prediction tools (Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope del Lazio [OESIL], San Francisco Syncope Rule [SFSR], Evaluation of Guidelines in Syncope Study [EGSYS]) could be assessed by the available datasets. None of the evaluated prediction tools performed better than clinical judgment in identifying serious outcomes during emergency department stay, and at 10 and 30 days after syncope. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the use of an individual patient data approach to reduce heterogeneity among studies, a large variability was still present. Current prediction tools did not show better sensitivity, specificity, or prognostic yield compared with clinical judgment in predicting short-term serious outcome after syncope. Our systematic review strengthens the evidence that current prediction tools should not be strictly used in clinical practice.

KW - Individual patient data

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Prognosis

KW - Risk-stratification tools

KW - Rules

KW - Syncope

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84912086364&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84912086364&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.05.022

DO - 10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.05.022

M3 - Article

C2 - 24862309

AN - SCOPUS:84912086364

VL - 127

SP - 1126.e13-1126.e25

JO - American Journal of Medicine

JF - American Journal of Medicine

SN - 0002-9343

IS - 11

ER -