Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25228966›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of cardiology2014

Risk stratification for ST segment elevation myocardial infarction in the era of primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Richard A Brogan, Christopher J Malkin, Phillip D Batin, Alexander D Simms, James M McLenachan, Christopher P Gale

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Richard A BroganRichard A Brogan, Christopher P Gale, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom.
Christopher J MalkinRichard A Brogan, Christopher P Gale, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom.
Phillip D BatinRichard A Brogan, Christopher P Gale, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom.
Alexander D SimmsRichard A Brogan, Christopher P Gale, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom.
James M McLenachanRichard A Brogan, Christopher P Gale, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom.
Christopher P GaleRichard A Brogan, Christopher P Gale, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom.
University of Leeds · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR/CS/009/004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acute coronary syndromes presenting with ST elevation are usually treated with emergency reperfusion/revascularisation therapy. In contrast current evidence and national guidelines recommend risk stratification for non ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) with the decision on revascularisation dependent on perceived clinical risk. Risk stratification for STEMI has no recommendation. Statistical risk scoring techniques in NSTEMI have been demonstrated to improve outcomes however their uptake has been poor perhaps due to questions over their discrimination and concern for application to individuals who may not have been adequately represented in clinical trials. STEMI is perceived to carry sufficient risk to warrant emergency coronary intervention [by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI)] even if this results in a delay to reperfusion with immediate thrombolysis. Immediate thrombolysis may be as effective in patients presenting early, or at low risk, but physicians are poor at assessing clinical and procedural risks and currently are not required to consider this. Inadequate data on risk stratification in STEMI inhibits the option of immediate fibrinolysis, which may be cost-effective. Currently the mode of reperfusion for STEMI defaults to emergency angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention ignoring alternative strategies. This review article examines the current risk scores and evidence base for risk stratification for STEMI patients. The requirements for an ideal STEMI risk score are discussed.

Indexed as

HarmPrimary percutaneous coronary interventionRisk scoresRisk stratificationST segment elevation myocardial infarction

Identifiers

PMID25228966
PMCPMC4163716
OpenAlexW1972482741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.