Extraction form for project: ESP Troponin ADPs

Design Details

1. Cohort name
Cohort, not ADP, name
2. Protocol number (eg, NCT)
3. Copublications
List other records that were extracted with this primary articles. Eg, PMIDs or other identifiers
4. Study design
5. Study years
Just years. Not publication year. Years of study. You may need to estimate. Use tilde (~) if you're approximating. If not reported, put "< ####" (the publication or submission year).
StartEnd
6. Funding
Include provision of materials (eg, cTn labs) from industry as industry funding
7. Country/ies
NR should rarely if ever be selected
8. Setting
9. Centers
If Unclear, add a note why
10. Inclusion criteria
ACS row = Eligibility criteria specific to acute coronary syndrome symptoms/signs. Age/Gender = criteria specific to age/gender. Prior CVD = restriction based on prior cardiovascular disease, event, or procedure. Other = other inclusion criteria. Skip rows that do not pertain. Be concise.
ACS
Age
Gender
Prior CVD
Other
11. Exclusion criteria
Prior CVD = exclusion based on prior cardiovascular disease, event, or procedure. Other = other exclusion criteria. Skip rows that do not pertain. Be concise.
STEMI
Prior CVD
Comorbidity
Other
12. Special/Atypical population
Highlight if this is a specific group of patients. Skip if no particular relevant exclusion criteria
13. Comments/Notes

Arms

Arm NameArm Description
not hs-cTnPre-implementation: Conventional cTnT at 0, then 6, 10h after symptom onset + serial ECG
hs-cTn Post-implementation: Hs-TnT at 6 h after symptoms onset (then repeat 2-4 hours if hs-TnT 14-49ng/L)
not hs-cTn grp 2historical control

Arm Details

1. hs-cTn info
Click NR checkboxes in each row with no reported data
not hs-cTn
DataNR
Test name
Manufacturer
Generation
Limit of detection (ng/L)
Comment/Note
99th %ile
hs-cTn
DataNR
Test name
Manufacturer
Generation
Limit of detection (ng/L)
Comment/Note
99th %ile
not hs-cTn grp 2
DataNR
Test name
Manufacturer
Generation
Limit of detection (ng/L)
Comment/Note
99th %ile

Sample Characteristics

1. N Enrolled
2. Age
3. % Male
4. Race/Ethnicity, %
White
White, Non-Hispanic
Black
Hispanic/Latino
Asian (any)
East Asian
South Asian
Other 1
Other 2
Other 3
NR
5. Are there significant differences (statistical or clinical) between the two groups?
6. History of Cardiovascular Disease, %
peripheral arterial disease
Stroke/TIA
Prior MI
prior revascularization (eg., CABG, PCI)
History of Cardiovascular Disease
7. Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease, %
Comments
Hypertension
Diabetes
Smoking Histrory
BMI/obesity
Family History
Hyperlipidemia
8. Risk Score
Enter risk score name (eg Heart), mean (SD) or thresholds and proportions
Name Risk ScoreThresholdProportion, %Mean (SD)Comment
Risk Score 1
Risk Score 2
Risk Score 3
Risk Score 4
9. Notes/Comments

Outcomes

TypeDomainSpecific measurement (i.e., tool/definition/specific outcome)PopulationsTimepoints
ContinuousED Visit durationMedian ED LOS
  • All Participants
  • ED visit
CategoricalReturn to ED or hospital30-day ED visit resulting in cardiology admission among discharged patients
  • Discharged ED patients
  • 30 (d)
CategoricalReturn to ED or hospitalED revisit for discharged patients
  • Discharged patients
  • 30 (d)
CategoricalDeath, all-cause
  • All Participants
  • 30 (d)
CategoricalHospitalizationCardiology admission
  • All Participants
  • ED visit
CategoricalHospitalizationPatients with troponin discharged from ED
  • All Participants
  • ED visit
CategoricalCardiac testingCardiology consult
  • All Participants
  • 30 (d)

Outcome Details

1. MI definition
Universal definitions refer to ESC/ACC/AHA/WHF (or Global MI) task forces. If an Other definition, provide details in 2nd row and the cited reference for their definition in the 3rd row.
ED Visit duration
Universal
Other
Other reference
Return to ED or hospital
Universal
Other
Other reference
Return to ED or hospital
Universal
Other
Other reference
Death, all-cause
Universal
Other
Other reference
Hospitalization
Universal
Other
Other reference
Hospitalization
Universal
Other
Other reference
Cardiac testing
Universal
Other
Other reference
2. MACE components
If a checked component has an asterisk (*), confirm with team before extracting the MACE outcome
ED Visit duration
Return to ED or hospital
Return to ED or hospital
Death, all-cause
Hospitalization
Hospitalization
Cardiac testing

Results

Categorical


Return to ED or hospital (30-day ED visit resulting in cardiology admission among discharged patients )

Discharged ED patients
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
not hs-cTnhs-cTnnot hs-cTn grp 2
not hs-cTn (Pre-implement...)
vs.
hs-cTn (...)
30 (d)
Total (N analyzed)
p value
Events
Percentage
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
not hs-cTnhs-cTnnot hs-cTn grp 2
not hs-cTn (Pre-implement...)
vs.
hs-cTn (...)

Return to ED or hospital (ED revisit for discharged patients)

Discharged patients
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
not hs-cTnhs-cTnnot hs-cTn grp 2
not hs-cTn (Pre-implement...)
vs.
hs-cTn (...)
30 (d)
Total (N analyzed)
p value
Events
Percentage
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
not hs-cTnhs-cTnnot hs-cTn grp 2
not hs-cTn (Pre-implement...)
vs.
hs-cTn (...)

Death, all-cause

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
not hs-cTnhs-cTnnot hs-cTn grp 2
not hs-cTn (Pre-implement...)
vs.
hs-cTn (...)
30 (d)
Total (N analyzed)
p value
Events
Percentage
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
not hs-cTnhs-cTnnot hs-cTn grp 2
not hs-cTn (Pre-implement...)
vs.
hs-cTn (...)

Hospitalization (Cardiology admission)

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
not hs-cTnhs-cTnnot hs-cTn grp 2
not hs-cTn (Pre-implement...)
vs.
hs-cTn (...)
ED visit
Total (N analyzed)
p value
Events
Percentage
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
not hs-cTnhs-cTnnot hs-cTn grp 2
not hs-cTn (Pre-implement...)
vs.
hs-cTn (...)

Hospitalization (Patients with troponin discharged from ED)

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
not hs-cTnhs-cTnnot hs-cTn grp 2
not hs-cTn (Pre-implement...)
vs.
hs-cTn (...)
not hs-cTn grp 2 (historical...)
ED visit
Total (N analyzed)
p value
Events
Percentage
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
not hs-cTnhs-cTnnot hs-cTn grp 2
not hs-cTn (Pre-implement...)
vs.
hs-cTn (...)
not hs-cTn grp 2 (historical...)

Cardiac testing (Cardiology consult)

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
not hs-cTnhs-cTnnot hs-cTn grp 2
not hs-cTn (Pre-implement...)
vs.
hs-cTn (...)
not hs-cTn grp 2 (historical...)
30 (d)
Total (N analyzed)
p value
Events
Percentage
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
not hs-cTnhs-cTnnot hs-cTn grp 2
not hs-cTn (Pre-implement...)
vs.
hs-cTn (...)
not hs-cTn grp 2 (historical...)

Continuous


ED Visit duration (Median ED LOS)

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
not hs-cTnhs-cTnnot hs-cTn grp 2
not hs-cTn (Pre-implement...)
vs.
hs-cTn (...)
ED visit
Total (N analyzed)
p value (MD)
Median
p value (adjMD)
25th percentile
75th percentile
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
not hs-cTnhs-cTnnot hs-cTn grp 2
not hs-cTn (Pre-implement...)
vs.
hs-cTn (...)

Study Risk of Bias

1. Design
2. Clarity: Discrepancies
Was the article free of discrepancies (eg, between text and tables)? Add note if No (High concern)
3. Clarity: Population
Were patient eligibility criteria sufficiently clear? Add note if No (High concern).
4. Clarity: Intervention/Comparator
Were the ADP (and comparator) sufficiently clear? Add note if No (High concern)
5. Clarity: Outcomes
Were outcomes adequately defined without problem? Add note if No (High concern). Not every outcome requires an explicit definition (e.g., duration of ED stay).
6. Clarity: Setting
Was the setting sufficiently clearly defined? (Eg, Do we know the hospital (and ED) type?) Add note if No (High concern).
7. Missing data
Were there missing results data for ANY patients for outcomes that occurred in ED or hospital? Were there missing results data for >20% of patients (or imbalance between study groups) for outcomes that occurred after ED/hospital discharge? Add Note if Yes
8. Outcome ascertainment
9. RCT: Randomization & Allocation Concealment
Was there inadequate randomization method or allocation concealment? Whether randomization was done at the level of the ED or the patient, answer No, unless there's an obvious flaw. If Yes, add note.
10. Observational: Cohort representativeness
Eligible patients having ADP were all selected or a random selection was selected. No concerns about biased selection of ADP patients. Add note if No (high RoB)
11. NRCI: Comparator representativeness
Comparator group (or ED) was sufficiently similar (and selected patients were all included or a random sample were included). Add note if No (high RoB)
12. NRCI: Adjustment for confounders