ReviewFrontiers in physiology2017
Immediate/Early vs. Delayed Invasive Strategy for Patients with Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Frontiers in physiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early invasive strategy for non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Review
- Incidence of Recurrent Adverse Cardiovascular Events Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Bangladesh: A Prospective Observational Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Early coronary angioplasty fails to lower all-cause mortality in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Time to presentation and mortality outcomes among patients with diabetes and acute myocardial infarction.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2024Article
- Long-term clinical outcomes in patients with non-ST-segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 0 flow.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2023Article
- Indications for an early invasive strategy in NSTE-ACS patients.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2020Review
- Perspective of delay in door-to-balloon time among Asian population.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2018Article
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 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Invasive coronary revascularization has been shown to improve prognoses in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS), but the optimal timing of intervention remains unclear. This meta-analysis is to evaluate the outcomes in immediate (<2 h), early (<24 h), and delayed invasive group and find out which is the optimal timing of intervention in NSTE-ACS patients. Studies were identified through electronic literature search of Medline, PubMed Central, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CNKI. Data were extracted for populations, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias. All-cause mortality was the pre-specified primary end point. The longest follow-up available in each study was chosen. The odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI was the effect measure. The fixed or random effect pooled measure was selected based on the heterogeneity test among studies. In the comparison between early and delayed intervention, we found that early intervention led to a statistical significant decrease in mortality rate (
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.