Cited by 128Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersEmergency and Acute Care StudiesClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

External validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule

Open access
Sun, Benjamin C., Mangione, Carol M., Merchant, Guy, Weiss, Timothy, Shlamovitz, Gil Z., Zargaraff, Gelareh, Shiraga, Sharon, Hoffman, Jerome R. +1 more·2007·Annals of Emergency Medicine

Abstract

Study objective We externally validate the ability of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to accurately identify syncope patients who will experience a 7-day serious clinical event.Methods Patients who presented to a single academic emergency department (ED) between 8 am and 10 pm with syncope or near-syncope were prospectively enrolled. Treating physicians recorded the presence or absence of all San Francisco Syncope Rule risk factors. Patients were contacted by telephone at 14 days for a structured interview. A 3-physician panel, blinded to the San Francisco Syncope Rule score, reviewed ED medical records, hospital records, and telephone interview forms to identify predefined serious clinical events. The primary outcome was the ability of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict any 7-day serious clinical event. A secondary outcome was the ability of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict 7-day serious clinical events that were not identified during the initial ED evaluation.Results Of 592 eligible patients, 477 (81%) provided informed consent. Direct telephone contact or admission/outpatient records were successfully obtained for 463 (97%) patients. There were 56 (12%) patients who had a serious 7-day clinical event, including 16 (3%) who received a diagnosis after the initial ED evaluation. Sensitivity and specificity of the San Francisco Syncope Rule for the primary outcome were 89% (95% confidence interval [CI] 81% to 97%) and 42% (95% CI 37% to 48%), respectively, and 69% (95% CI 46% to 92%) and 42% (95% CI 37% to 48%), respectively, for the secondary outcome. Estimates of sensitivity were minimally affected by missing data and most optimistic assumptions for missing follow-up information.Conclusion In this external validation cohort, the San Francisco Syncope Rule had a lower sensitivity and specificity than in previous reports.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.11.012

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 [83]

    The Discussion (page not provided) reports lower sensitivity and specificity for the San Francisco Syncope Rule in this external validation. The 'How this might change clinical practice' section says the rule requires further external validation before general ED use. The paper does not establish that none of the syncope rules are widely used, or that poor performance or absent validation explains their use across EDs. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 20 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sun, B. C., Mangione, C. M., Merchant, G., Weiss, T., Shlamovitz, G. Z., Zargaraff, G., Shiraga, S., Hoffman, J. R., & Mower, W. R.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Sun, Benjamin C.
Venue
Annals of Emergency Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-04
Volume
49
Issue
4
Pages
420-427.e4
ISSN
0196-0644 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2163991175
Cited by
128
References
20
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 9
FWCI
12.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging (AG-02-004, K12AG001004)
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, risk prediction, external validation, sensitivity and specificity, emergency department, telephone follow-up
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Clinical Protocols, Emergency Medicine, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, San Francisco, Sensitivity and Specificity, Syncope, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Risk 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