ReviewWorld journal of cardiology2014
Clinical disease registries in acute myocardial infarction.
Review in World journal of cardiology, 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.
- Validity and timeliness of cancer diagnosis data collected during a prospective cohort study and reported by the English and Welsh cancer registries: a retrospective, comparative analysis.The Lancet. Oncology · 2024Observational
- Cangrelor: Clinical Data, Contemporary Use, and Future Perspectives.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Review
- Defining key design elements of registry-based randomised controlled trials: a scoping review.Trials · 2020Article
- Objectives and Design of the Russian Acute Coronary Syndrome Registry (RusACSR).Clinical cardiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Disease registries, containing systematic records of cases, have for nearly 100 years been valuable in exploring and understanding various aspects of cardiology. This is particularly true for myocardial infarction, where such registries have provided both epidemiological and clinical information that was not readily available from randomised controlled trials in highly-selected populations. Registries, whether mandated or voluntary, prospective or retrospective in their analysis, have at their core a common study population and common data definitions. In this review we highlight how registries have diversified to offer information on epidemiology, risk modelling, quality assurance/improvement and original research-through data mining, transnational comparisons and the facilitation of enrolment in, and follow-up during registry-based randomised clinical trials.
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.