ReviewPostgraduate medical journal2005
Implications of the new definition of myocardial infarction.
Review in Postgraduate medical journal, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiorenal syndromes and sepsis.International journal of nephrology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The new definition of acute myocardial infarction is based primarily on raised troponin levels because of the sensitivity and specificity of these markers and their correlation with the pathophysiology of acute coronary syndromes with plaque fissuring or rupture and embolisation of platelets causing myocyte necrosis. Raised troponin levels are associated with increased risks of death and recurrent myocardial infarction. Greater treatment benefit with low molecular weight heparin, IIb/IIIa antagonists and revascularisation is seen when troponin levels are raised. There are many implications for patients and society of the new definition including changes in insurability and ability to continue certain occupations. Many more patients, who would previously been diagnosed as having unstable angina, will now be diagnosed as having had an acute myocardial infarction. In addition case fatality rates will fall and comparison with previous epidemiological studies using the old definition will be problematic. However, the new definition may result in greater use of evidence based therapies with improved patient outcomes and decreased community death rates.
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.