SynthesisScientific reports2016
Early Invasive Strategy for Unstable Angina: a New Meta-Analysis of Old Clinical Trials.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antithrombotic treatment tailoring and risk score evaluation in elderly patients diagnosed with an acute coronary syndrome.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2017Review
- Expert Opinion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Older People: Does Age Make a Difference?Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conflicting to support whether unstable angina versus non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) patients best undergo early invasive or a conservative revascularization strategy. RCTs with cardiac biomarkers, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1975-2013 were reviewed considering all cause mortality, recurrent non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and their combination. Follow-up lasted from 6-24 months and the use of routine invasive strategy up to its end was associated with a significantly lower composite of all-cause mortality and recurrent non-fatal MI (Relative Risk [RR] 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.90) in UA/NSTEMI. In NSTEMI, by the invasive strategy, there was no benefit (RR 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.38). In the shorter time period, from randomization to discharge, a routine invasive strategy was associated with significantly higher odds of the combined end-point among UA/NSTEMI (RR 1.29; 95% CI, 1.05-1.58) and NSTEMI (RR 1.82; 95% CI, 1.34-2.48) patients. Therefore, in trials recruiting a large number of UA patients, by routine invasive strategy the largest benefit was seen, whereas in NSTEMI patients death and non-fatal MI were not lowered. Routine invasive treatment in UA patients is accordingly supported by the present study.
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.