Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20024640›Full record

ArticleHerz2009

CRP in cardiovascular disease.

Mahir Karakas, Wolfgang Koenig

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Herz, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Study of C-reactive protein and myocardial infarction in the Indian population.Indian journal of clinical biochemistry : IJCB · 2012
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mahir KarakasDepartment of Internal Medicine II - Cardiology, University of Ulm Medical Center, Ulm, Germany.
Wolfgang Koenig
Universität Ulm · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In primary prevention, traditional risk factors are a useful first step in determining who is at cardiovascular risk, however, it has been noted that a considerable number of those at risk cannot be identified on the basis of traditional risk factors alone. Among blood biomarkers, C-reactive protein (CRP), measured by high-sensitivity assays (hsCRP), has received widespread interest and a large database has been accumulated on its potential role as a predictor of cardiovascular risk, although observed associations between circulating CRP and coronary heart disease (CHD) are unlikely to be causal, as recently indicated by various Mendelian randomization studies. In a meta-analysis of 22 prospective studies, the multivariable adjusted, combined odds ratio for CRP to predict CHD, comparing extreme tertiles, was 1.58 (95% confidence interval, 1.48-1.68). Several recent studies showed a significant contribution of CRP to coronary risk prediction independent of the Framingham Risk Score, with better discrimination, calibration and improved, albeit modest reclassification of subjects at risk. To test the hypothesis whether or not subjects with normal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol but elevated CRP represent a population at increased risk that might benefit from statin treatment, the JUPITER trial randomized 17,802 apparently healthy persons to either 20 mg rosuvastatin daily or placebo. Rosuvastatin significantly reduced the incidence of major cardiovascular events. The rates of the primary endpoint (composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, revascularization, and confirmed death from cardiovascular causes) were 0.77 and 1.36 per 100 person-years of follow-up in the rosuvastatin and placebo groups, respectively. Relative risk reduction was 44%. CRP may have more accurately selected high-risk subjects due to its association with very many risk factors, thus representing an integrative marker of the total inflammatory burden of an individual. JUPITER has revitalized the discussion on CRP in clinical practice and will make it more difficult in the future to neglect the evidence built around CRP and cardiovascular risk.

Indexed as

BiomarkersCardiovascular DiseasesC-Reactive ProteinEchocardiographyHumansPrevalenceRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkersC-Reactive Protein

Identifiers

PMID20024640
OpenAlexW1507020126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.