SynthesisClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2014
Outcomes in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome randomly assigned to invasive versus conservative treatment strategies: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ischemia-Guided Approach Versus Early Invasive Approach for NSTE-ACS: How Early Is Early?Current cardiology reports · 2021Review
- One year follow-up Assessment of Patients Included in the Brazilian Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACCEPT).Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2020Article
- Long-term prognosis of patients with acute non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing different treatment strategies.Chinese medical journal · 2015Article
- Admission route and use of invasive procedures during hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction: analysis of 2007-2011 National Health Insurance database.Epidemiology and health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe goal of the present study was to compare the prognoses of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes who were treated with invasive or conservative treatment strategies.
methodsWe performed a meta-analysis of studies of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes to assess the benefits of an invasive strategy vs. a conservative strategy for short- and long-term survival. We searched PubMed for studies published from 1990 to November 2012 that investigated the effects of an invasive vs. conservative strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. The following search terms were used: "non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction", "unstable angina", "acute coronary syndromes", "invasive strategy", and "conservative strategy". The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality at 30 days and 1 year.
resultsSeven published studies were included in the present meta-analysis. The pooled analyses show that an invasive strategy decreased the risk of death (risk ratio [0.839] [95% confidence interval {0.648-1.086}; I 2, 86.46%] compared to a conservative strategy over a 30-day-period. Furthermore, invasive treatment also decreased patient mortality (risk ratio [0.276] [95% confidence interval {0.259-0.294}; I 2, 94.58%]) compared to a conservative strategy for one year.
conclusionIn non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes, an invasive strategy is comparable to a conservative strategy for decreasing short- and long-term mortality rates.
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.