ArticleHeart (British Cardiac Society)2005
Increased titres of anti-human heat shock protein 60 predict an adverse one year prognosis in patients with acute cardiac chest pain.
Article in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Alarmins in Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: Immunological Insights and Therapeutic Perspectives.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Antibodies against Hsp60 and Hsp65 in the sera of women with ovarian cancer.Journal of ovarian research · 2014Article
- Comparison of epitope specificity of anti-heat shock protein 60/65 IgG type antibodies in the sera of healthy subjects, patients with coronary heart disease and inflammatory bowel disease.Cell stress & chaperones · 2012Article
- Heat shock proteins: pathogenic role in atherosclerosis and potential therapeutic implications.Autoimmune diseases · 2012Article
- Heat shock proteins as biomarkers for the rapid detection of brain and spinal cord ischemia: a review and comparison to other methods of detection in thoracic aneurysm repair.Cell stress & chaperones · 2011Review
- Salivary immunoglobulins and prevalent coronary artery disease.Journal of dental research · 2010Article
- Circulating anti-heat-shock-protein antibodies in normal pregnancy and preeclampsia.Cell stress & chaperones · 2009Article
- Antibodies against heat shock proteins in environmental stresses and diseases: friend or foe?Cell stress & chaperones · 2006Review
- Heat shock proteins in cardiovascular disease and the prognostic value of heat shock protein related measurements.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess whether antibodies to human heat shock protein 60 (anti-huhsp60) or to mycobacterial heat shock protein 65 (anti-mhsp65) predict an adverse one year prognosis in patients admitted with acute cardiac chest pain.
designProspective observational study.
settingTeaching hospital. PATIENTS: 588 consecutive emergency admissions of patients with acute chest pain of suspected cardiac origin.
main outcome measuresAnti-huhsp60 and anti-mhsp65 titres were assayed on samples drawn on the morning after admission. The end points after discharge were coronary heart disease death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, angiogram, or readmission with further cardiac ischaemic chest pain.
resultsDuring follow up after discharge (mean of 304 days, range 1-788 days), 277 patients had at least one of the study outcomes. Patients with increased titres of anti-huhsp60 had an adverse prognosis (hazard ratio 1.56 (95% confidence interval 1.09 to 2.23) comparing highest versus lowest quartiles, p = 0.015). Anti-mhsp65 titres were not predictive.
conclusionsPatients admitted with acute cardiac chest pain and increased titres of anti-huhsp60 had an adverse one year prognosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.