ReviewClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2018
German contribution to development and innovations in the management of acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock.
Review in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanical circulatory support with Impella versus intra-aortic balloon pump or medical treatment in cardiogenic shock-a critical appraisal of current data.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2019Pooled it
- Impella versus extracorporal life support in cardiogenic shock: a propensity score adjusted analysis.ESC heart failure · 2021Article
- Implementation of an intensified outpatient follow-up protocol improves outcomes in patients with ventricular assist devices.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2019Article
- Polyhedral erythrocytes in intracoronary thrombus and their association with reperfusion in myocardial infarction.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 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
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Treatment of acute coronary syndromes has evolved over time leading to a significantly reduced mortality. Multiple major trials have been performed in Germany leading to new treatment strategies in acute coronary syndromes including cardiogenic shock. This review article will summarize major trials and their impact on guideline recommendations in acute myocardial infarction highlighting reperfusion strategies, antiplatelet regimens, prognosis assessment and also mechanical circulatory support in stable infarction patients and in cardiogenic shock.
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.