You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 39, Issue 6
  • Letter to the editor: Multicentre external validation of the Canadian Syncope Risk Score to predict adverse events and comparison with clinical judgement

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Letter to the editor: Multicentre external validation of the Canadian Syncope Risk Score to predict adverse events and comparison with clinical judgement
  1. Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy1,2
  1. 1 Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  2. 2 Ottawa Hospital Research Insitute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; vthirug{at}ohri.ca

https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2021-212268

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    I read with interest the article on validation of the Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) at six Italian hospitals. I applaud the efforts of Solbiati et al to validate the CSRS.1 However, the study has a few methodological flaws to trust the conclusions as reported.

    First, the sample size. With just 345 patients of whom 43 patients with 30-day serious adverse event is a sample that is inadequate for a validation study. Unfortunately, the study has less than half of the recommended sample size: at least 100 patients with events and non-events, or 10 patients with events per predictor. …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Handling editor Richard Body

    • Contributors I am the sole author of the letter to the editor.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles