Evidence Hub

Performance of Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes decision rules in acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Shayan Roshdi Dizaji, Koohyar Ahmadzadeh, Hamed Zarei, Reza Miri, M. Yousefifard

European journal of emergency medicine, 2024

2 citations

Abstract

Multiple decision-aiding models are available to help physicians identify acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and accelerate the decision-making process in emergency departments (EDs). This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndrome (MACS) rule and its derivations, enhancing the evidence for their clinical use. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception until October 2023 for studies including adult ED patients with suspected cardiac chest pain and inconclusive findings requiring ACS risk-stratification. The predictive value of MACS, Troponin-only MACS (T-MACS), or History and Electrocardiogram-only MACS (HE-MACS) decision aids for diagnosing acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and 30-day major adverse cardiac outcomes (MACEs) among patients admitted to ED with chest pain suspected of ACS. Overall sensitivity and specificity were synthesized using the ‘Diagma’ package in STATA statistical software. Applicability and risk of bias assessment were performed using the QUADAS-2 tool. For AMI detection, MACS has a sensitivity of 99% [confidence interval (CI): 97–100], specificity of 19% (CI: 10–32), and AUC of 0.816 (CI: 0.720–0.885). T-MACS shows a sensitivity of 98% (CI: 98–99), specificity of 35% (CI: 29–42), and AUC of 0.859 (CI: 0.824–0.887). HE-MACS exhibits a sensitivity of 99% (CI: 98–100), specificity of 9% (CI: 3–21), and AUC of 0.787 (CI: 0.647–0.882).…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free