Application of San Francisco Syncope Rule in elderly ED patients
Abstract
Objectives The San Francisco Syncope Rule (SFSR) is a decision rule with the potential to identify patients at risk for serious outcomes within 7 days of the emergency department (ED) visit for syncope. The initial studies of the SFSR reported a high sensitivity and specificity for identifying patients, of all ages, with serious outcomes. Our objective was to determine if the SFSR can be safely and accurately applied to ED patients aged 65 and older with syncope or near-syncope.Methods A retrospective review of ED patients aged 65 years and older with syncope or near-syncope between January 2000 and August 2001 was performed. Charts were reviewed for evidence of SFSR risks for the ED visit and serious outcomes within 7 days of the ED visit.Results Of 773 subjects identified as having syncope or near-syncope, 517 subjects were included. There were 98 patients with serious outcomes. Twenty-three patients who were negative on SFSR had serious outcomes. The sensitivity and specificity of the SFSR were 76.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.7%-84.3%) and 36.8% (95% CI, 32.2%-41.6%), respectively. The negative and positive predictive values were 87.0% (95% CI, 80.9%-91.4%) and 22.1% (95% CI, 17.8%-26.9%), respectively.Conclusions In our cohort of elderly ED patients, the SFSR had a lower sensitivity and specificity. The SFSR may not be applicable to the elderly ED population. Future prospective validation is necessary before application to the ED elderly population.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
None of the emergency department syncope clinical decision rules are used widely in emergency departments due to poor sensitivity and specificity reported from external validation, or due to a lack of external validation.
“None of these rules are used widely in EDs due to poor sensitivity and specificity reported from external validation, or due to a lack of external validation. 70,78-85”
From 2018 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope (2018) · cites this paper as [82]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 45
- Authors
- Schladenhaufen, R., Feilinger, S., Pollack, M., Benenson, R., & Kusmiesz, A. L.
- Corresponding author
- Pollack, Marc
- Venue
- The American Journal of Emergency Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-09
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 773-778
- ISSN
- 0735-6757 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2037424424
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 4.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The American Journal of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Keywords
- San Francisco Syncope Rule, syncope, presyncope, elderly patients, emergency department, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, predictive value, clinical decision rules, risk stratification
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Clinical Protocols, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Humans, Male, Medical Records, Predictive Value of Tests, Retrospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Syncope, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Geriatric Assessment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review