ArticleExperimental and clinical cardiology2009
The use of risk scores for stratification of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome patients.
Article in Experimental and clinical cardiology, 2009. 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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The relationship between advanced lung cancer inflammation index and high SYNTAX score in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2024Article
- The Relevance of Interventional Time and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with NSTEMI Based on the GRACE Score.Applied bionics and biomechanics · 2022Article
- Prognostic value of GRACE score for in-hospital and 6 months outcomes after non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2021Article
- Relation of presystolic wave on doppler examination to syntax score in patients with acute myocardial infarction.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2018Article
- Predicting mortality after acute coronary syndromes in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2016Article
- Establishment of a hybrid risk model to predict major cardiac adverse events in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2016Article
- Mid-term Risk Stratification of Patients with a Myocardial Infarction and Atrial Fibrillation: Beyond GRACE and CHADS.Journal of atrial fibrillation · 2013Article
- ACHTUNG-Rule: a new and improved model for prognostic assessment in myocardial infarction.European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo review the methods available for the risk stratification of non-ST elevation (NSTE) acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients and to evaluate the use of risk scores for their initial risk assessment. DATA SOURCES: The data of the present review were identified by searching PUBMED and other databases (1996 to 2008) using the key terms "risk stratification", "risk scores", "NSTEMI", "UA" and "acute coronary syndrome". STUDY SELECTION: Mainly original articles, guidelines and critical reviews written by major pioneer researchers in this field were selected.
resultAfter evaluation of several risk predictors and risk scores, it was found that estimating risk based on clinical characteristics is challenging and imprecise. Risk predictors, whether used alone or in simple binary combination, lacked sufficient precision because they have high specificity but low sensitivity. Risk scores are more accurate at stratifying NSTE ACS patients into low-, intermediate- or high-risk groups. The Global Registry of Acute Cardiac Events risk score was found to have superior predictive accuracy compared with other risk scores in ACS population. Treatments based according to specific clinical and risk grouping show that certain benefits may be predominantly or exclusively restricted to higher risk patients.
conclusionBased on the trials in the literature, the Global Registry of Acute Cardiac Events risk score is more advantageous and easier to use than other risk scores. It can categorize a patient's risk of death and/or ischemic events, which can help tailor therapy to match the intensity of the patient's NSTE ACS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19675816PMC2722456W2136616411What 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.