ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2016
Predictive significance of detectable cardiac troponin I measured with a contemporary-sensitive assay in a real life experience.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence and pitfalls in diagnosis and prognostication of acute coronary syndrome.Annals of translational medicine · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiac troponin (cTn) testing has reduced the likelihood of erroneous discharge of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) from the emergency department (ED), but doubts remain about optimal clinical use. This study was planned for evaluating the predictive significance of cTn values between the limit of detection of the method and the 99th percentile in ED patients evaluated for suspected ACS.
methodsIn this retrospective study all hospital records of patients admitted over a 6-month period to the ED and with at least one cTnI value comprised between the limit of detection (0.01 ng/mL) and the 99th percentile of the assay (0.05 ng/mL) were analyzed.
resultsA total of 4,749 patients with cTnI value between 0.01-0.05 ng/mL were identified among 57,879 ED visits throughout the study period. Overall, 2,189 patients (46.1%) were discharged from the ED, 2,529 (53.25%) were admitted to the hospital and 31 (0.65%) died during ED stay. A total number of 289 patients out of 2,189 who were discharged (i.e., 13.2%) had additional ED visits within 30 days. Among these, 6 were diagnosed with ACS, representing 0.27% of patients discharged [negative predictive value (NPV) 0.997; 95% CI, 0.994-0.999] and 2.1% of those with second admission (NPV 0.979; 95% CI, 0.955-0.992). Only one of the 2,529 patients admitted to the hospital (i.e., 0.04%) developed an ACS during hospital stay.
conclusionsThe results of our retrospective study suggest that the suitability of using a contemporary-sensitive cTnI immunoassay assay in the context of an appropriate protocol represents a safe and effective strategy for ruling in and ruling out ACS in patients presenting to the ED.
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.