Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27500158›Full record

ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2016

High-sensitivity cardiac troponin testing in routine practice: economic and organizational advantages.

Claudio Galli, Giuseppe Lippi

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Claudio GalliMedical Scientific Liaison Europe, Abbott Diagnostics, Roma, Italy ;
Giuseppe LippiSection of Clinical Biochemistry, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Azienda Sanitaria Locale Roma 3 · ITUniversity of Verona · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Very seldom, if ever, a single laboratory test has provided such a paradigm shift in the managed care as cardiac troponin (cTn) testing. More than twenty years of improvements in test design and analytical features have contributed to revolutionize the clinical recommendations and guidelines, and the diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI) is now highly dependent upon the kinetics of cTn within a suggestive clinical setting. Despite the advent of high-sensitivity cTn (HS-cTn) immunoassays has allowed a more accurate and timely diagnosis as well as a higher prognostic accuracy, the focus is now shifting on the most suitable algorithms and on a comprehensive approach to the clinical management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). In this article we aim to discuss the implications of HS-cTn testing for ruling out and ruling in ACS. In the latter instance, main improvements are related to ACS diagnosis in women, in whom this pathology is still often underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed. A quick and accurate rule out will also regarded as a great advantage from both an organizational and economic standpoint. The advantages that will stem from this new approach have been recently assessed, and shortening of repeated testing 1 or 2 h from conventional algorithms entailing blood sampling at 3 and 6 h seems attainable. The larger benefits will definitely occur in clinical settings where the actual diagnosis rate of MI among patients with suspect ACS is lower and, consequently, the negative predictive value (NPV) of HS-cTn is the highest.

Indexed as

Cardiac troponin I (cTnI)emergency roomhealth technology assessmentmajor adverse eventsmyocardial infarction (MI)

Identifiers

PMID27500158
PMCPMC4958731
OpenAlexW2490129106

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.