Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 28, 2026

An Experimental Paradigm for the Prediction of Post-Operative Pain PPOP
Published on: January 27, 2010
Chest pain in general practice: a systematic review of prediction rules
Ralf E Harskamp1,2, Simone C Laeven1, Jelle Cl Himmelreich1
1Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Insights
Clinical decision rules (CDRs) for chest pain in general practice are evaluated. The Marburg Heart Score shows promise for intermittent chest pain, outperforming clinical judgment, but no rule safely excludes acute coronary syndrome (ACS).
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- General Practice
- Diagnostic Accuracy
Background:
- Chest pain is a common presentation in general practice.
- Accurate diagnosis is crucial to rule out serious conditions like acute coronary syndrome (ACS).
- Clinical decision rules (CDRs) may aid in diagnosis, but their performance in primary care needs assessment.
Purpose of the Study:
- To systematically review and assess the performance of CDRs for chest pain in general practice.
- To identify CDRs applicable in primary care without advanced testing.
- To compare the diagnostic accuracy of CDRs against clinical judgment.
Main Methods:
- Systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies.
- Searched Medline/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Google Scholar up to October 2018.
- Independent data extraction and quality assessment (QUADAS-2) by reviewers.
Main Results:
- Five CDRs were identified across eight studies for intermittent chest pain and ACS rule-out.
- The Marburg Heart Score demonstrated high sensitivity (86%-91%) and specificity (61%-81%) for coronary disease, outperforming general practitioner judgment.
- CDRs for ACS rule-out showed variable performance; the Bruins Slot rule was safer than clinical judgment but had limitations.
Conclusions:
- No current CDR can definitively rule out ACS in general practice.
- For intermittent chest pain, the Marburg Heart Score is the most validated CDR and appears superior to clinical judgment alone.
- Further validation is needed for other CDRs, particularly those for ACS rule-out.
Objective:
To identify and assess the performance of clinical decision rules (CDR) for chest pain in general practice.
Design:
Systematic review of diagnostic studies.
Data Sources:
Medline/Pubmed, Embase/Ovid, CINAHL/EBSCO and Google Scholar up to October 2018.
Study Selection:
Studies that assessed CDRs for intermittent-type chest pain and for rule out of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) applicable in general practice, thus not relying on advanced laboratory, computer or diagnostic testing.
Review Methods:
Reviewers identified studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence (using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2)), independently and in duplicate.
Results:
Eight studies comprising five CDRs met the inclusion criteria. Three CDRs are designed for rule out of coronary disease in intermittent-type chest pain (Gencer rule, Marburg Heart Score, INTERCHEST), and two for rule out of ACS (Grijseels rule, Bruins Slot rule). Studies that examined the Marburg Heart Score had the highest methodological quality with consistent sensitivity (86%-91%), specificity (61%-81%) and positive (23%-35%) and negative (97%-98%) predictive values (PPV and NPV). The diagnostic performance of Gencer (PPV: 20%-34%, NPV: 95%-99%) and INTERCHEST (PPV: 35%-43%, NPV: 96%-98%) appear comparable, but requires further validation. The Marburg Heart Score was more sensitive in detecting coronary disease than the clinical judgement of the general practitioner. The performance of CDRs that focused on rule out of ACS were: Grijseels rule (sensitivity: 91%, specificity: 37%, PPV: 57%, NPV: 82%) and Bruins Slot (sensitivity: 97%, specificity: 10%, PPV: 23%, NPV: 92%). Compared with clinical judgement, the Bruins Slot rule appeared to be safer than clinical judgement alone, but the study was limited in sample size.
Conclusions:
In general practice, there is currently no clinical decision aid that can safely rule out ACS. For intermittent chest pain, several rules exist, of which the Marburg Heart Score has been most extensively tested and appears to outperform clinical judgement alone.
Related Concept Videos
Exceptions to the Octet Rule
Lewis Symbols and the Octet Rule
Flail Chest-I
Flail chest is a severe and potentially life-threatening condition characterized by the fracture of three or more adjacent ribs in multiple places. It is most commonly caused by direct impacts and trauma, such as motor vehicle accidents or injuries from a steering wheel impact. It can also occur due to falls in elderly individuals with osteoporosis, or assaults involving sharp objects.
Pathophysiology
The pathophysiology of flail chest is complex, involving fractures of...
Flail Chest-II
Assessment:
1. Clinical Evaluation:
History:
Chest Physiotherapy
Purpose
CPT is primarily used for patients with excessive bronchial secretions who have difficulty clearing...
The Aufbau Principle and Hund's Rule

