ReviewInternal and emergency medicine2012
Clinical utility of novel biomarkers for cardiovascular disease risk stratification.
Review in Internal and emergency medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Which biomarkers are predictive specifically for cardiovascular or for non-cardiovascular mortality in men? Evidence from the Caerphilly Prospective Study (CaPS).International journal of cardiology · 2015Article
- Inner ear symptoms: can we use them to approach cardiovascular diseases?Internal and emergency medicine · 2014Article
- Physical activity for the prevention and treatment of metabolic disorders.Internal and emergency medicine · 2013Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the past few decades, a number of coronary artery disease (CAD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors have been identified. The predictive power of "conventional" risk factors have been validated by observational, prospective and intervention studies. Nevertheless, all attempts to exactly predict the individual risk for CAD have failed, biased by a large number of incorrectly risk-classified subjects. To improve cardiovascular (CV) risk prediction, a large number of genetic and/or non-genetic biomarkers have been discovered and tested against the "classical" risk factors for their power to predict CV risk. Only few of them had a significant improvement over the predictive models. In this paper, the most investigated biomarkers will be discussed and the evidence of their use as predictors of CV will be questioned.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23073867What 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.