ArticleBMJ open2017
Educational attainment and differences in relative survival after acute myocardial infarction in Norway: a registry-based population study.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Education Level and Self-Reported Cardiovascular Disease in Norway-The Tromsø Study, 1994-2016.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Physical resilience after a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease among offspring of long-lived siblings.European journal of ageing · 2022Article
- Social Factors, Sex, and Mortality Risk After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Population-Based Cohort Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough there is a broad societal interest in socioeconomic differences in survival after an acute myocardial infarction, only a few studies have investigated how such differences relate to the survival in general population groups. We aimed to investigate education-specific survival after acute myocardial infarction and to compare this with the survival of corresponding groups in the general population.
methodsOur study included the entire population of Norwegian patients admitted to hospitals for acute myocardial infarction during 2008-2010, with a 6- year follow-up period. Patient survival was measured relative to the expected survival in the general population for three educational groups: primary, secondary and tertiary. Education, sex, age and calendar year-specific expected survival were obtained from population life tables and adjusted for the presence of infarction-related mortality.
resultsSix-year patient survivals were 56.3% (55.3-57.2) and 65.5% (65.6-69.3) for the primary and tertiary educational groups (95% CIs), respectively. Also 6-year relative survival was markedly lower for the primary educational group: 70.2% (68.6-71.8) versus 81.2% (77.4-84.4). Throughout the follow-up period, patient survival tended to remain lower than the survival in the general population with the same educational background.
conclusionBoth patient survival and relative survival after acute myocardial infarction are positively associated with educational level. Our findings may suggest that secondary prevention has been more effective for the highly educated.
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.