ReviewBioMed research international2015
Beyond the Limits: Clinical Utility of Novel Cardiac Biomarkers.
Review in BioMed research international, 2015. 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.
- Diagnosing Perioperative Cardiovascular Risks in Noncardiac Surgery Patients.Journal of analytical methods in chemistry · 2019Review
- Addition of clinical risk scores improves prediction performance of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification for postoperative mortality in older patients: a pilot study.European geriatric medicine · 2018Article
- MiRroring the Multiple Potentials of MicroRNAs in Acute Myocardial Infarction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preoperative assessment of cardiovascular risk is essential when it comes to extensive noncardiac surgery procedures. Therefore, accurate and timely diagnosis of myocyte damage is vital. In modern medical practice it is believed that the so-called "multimarker" approach is the most appropriate and most accurate, but new research points out that there are novel biomarkers which could be used independently. Studies that evaluate miRNA, H-FABP, and MR-PAMP give encouraging results. When it comes to miRNA clinical studies show high statistical significance, especially in the case of acute myocardial infarction (P = 0.001). Statistical significance of P = 0.007 was found in acute coronary syndrome, when H-FABP was measured. Biochemical marker MR-PAMP showed statistical significance of P < 0.0001 in most clinical studies.
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.