ReviewJournal of medicine and life
Right ventricular myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism differential diagnosis--a challenge for the clinician.
Review in Journal of medicine and life. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can FoCUS Speed Up the Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome in the Emergency Department?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- From STEMI to saddle pulmonary embolism: Management challenges and the role of VA-ECMO.Global cardiology science & practice · 2026Article
- Massive pulmonary embolism with ST-segment elevation mimicking an isolated right ventricular myocardial infarction in a patient with COVID-19 pneumonia: Case report.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
- Point-of-care transthoracic echocardiography.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2021Article
- Diagnostic value of standard electrocardiogram in acute right ventricular myocardial infarction.European journal of translational myology · 2019Article
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
It is frequently recognized in medical literature as well as in daily clinical practice that right ventricular myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism are two of the most challenging clinical pictures to differentiate in cardiology and the treatment, often chosen upon a mixture of clinical suspicion criteria subsequently confirmed by other diagnostic methods, can lead to therapeutic success. Differential diagnosis is often difficult due to similar clinical picture, unspecific electrocardiographic changes and unspecific biological markers. It is very important to know the risk factors and the associated comorbidities for these two clinical entities in order to be able to interpret them contextually. In most cases the diagnosis key is the clinical suspicion. Usually in evaluating these cases we are in the position of choosing more complex diagnostic procedures, most likely not available in Emergency Department. In conclusion it is expected from the clinician to use the available methods with a thorough approach to details but in the same time considering the whole clinical picture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20945815PMC3019007W59278331What 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.