ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2010
What goes into a major acute coronary syndrome trial and what will future trials look like?
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2010. 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.
- Incidence and predictors of bleeding among Egyptian patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome: Using CRUSADE risk score.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are common and carry a high risk of death and serious complications. Over the past three decades, the international cardiology community has collaborated in numerous large, well-designed randomized trials evaluating promising new treatments leading to important improvements in care for patients with ACS. Industry has funded most of the ACS trials of new pharmacologic treatments, but there are many independently funded trials evaluating treatment strategies such as percutaneous coronary intervention. Improvements in ACS care have led to challenges in demonstrating the efficacy of new treatments and many current trials are comparing one active treatment against another, although new paradigms including anti-inflammatory treatments and stem cell infusions are being tested against placebo. Developing new drugs for ACS is a very expensive process with many trials not showing any benefit, and much of this expense is related to the cost of large multicenter phase 3 trials. Reducing the administrative burden and associated costs of ACS trials is an important immediate goal if the strong tradition of large collaborative trials is to continue, as well as the need for health care providers to engage more actively in the clinical research process and support large multinational independently funded trials. We discuss methodologic issues of ACS trials with recent examples and provide some perspectives for the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20496125What 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.