ReviewMolecular diagnosis & therapy2014
Biomarker tests for risk assessment in coronary artery disease: will they change clinical practice?
Review in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2014. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Helicobacter pylori infection and the risk of acute coronary syndrome: a nationwide retrospective cohort study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2015Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The clinical significance and economic impact of coronary artery disease has triggered major research efforts into the discovery of novel biomarkers for risk stratification in primary and secondary prevention and then the development of assays suitable for routine measurement. Nevertheless, the clinical impact of these novel biomarkers for risk stratification is still limited because they do not add substantially to traditional risk factors and they only modestly-even with a multimarker approach-improve risk stratification and patient reclassification. The most useful markers appear to be high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, natriuretic peptides, and, eventually, high-sensitivity cardiac troponins. Further research is clearly needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.