Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30535801›Full record

SynthesisClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2019

Variations on classification of main types of myocardial infarction: a systematic review and outcome meta-analysis.

Kris G Vargas, Paul M Haller, Bernhard Jäger, Maximilian Tscharre, Ronald K Binder, Christian Mueller, Bertil Lindahl, Kurt Huber

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Contemporary scientometric analyses using a novel web application: the science performance evaluation (SciPE) approach.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Predictors of transportation delay in patients with suspected ST-elevation-myocardial infarction in the VIENNA-STEMI network.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2020
    Article
  10. Microvascular spasm in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction without culprit lesion (MINOCA).Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2020
    Article
  11. 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

8 authors.

Kris G Vargas3rd Department of Medicine, Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Wilhelminen Hospital, Vienna, Austria. krisgregoryvargas@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3929-327X
Paul M Haller3rd Department of Medicine, Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Wilhelminen Hospital, Vienna, Austria.
Bernhard Jäger3rd Department of Medicine, Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Wilhelminen Hospital, Vienna, Austria.
Maximilian Tscharre3rd Department of Medicine, Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Wilhelminen Hospital, Vienna, Austria.
Ronald K BinderDepartment of Cardiology and Intensive Care, Klinikum Wels-Grieskirchen, Wels, Austria.
Christian MuellerDepartment of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel (CRIB), University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Bertil LindahlDepartment of Medical Sciences and Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Kurt Huber3rd Department of Medicine, Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Wilhelminen Hospital, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

Association for the Promotion of Research in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology (ATVB) and by the Ludwig Boltzmann Cluster for Cardiovascular Research, Vienna, Austria Unrestricted grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveClassifying myocardial infarction into type 1 (T1MI) or type 2 (T2MI) remains a challenge in clinical practice. We aimed to identify factors contributing to variation in the classifications of MI into type 1 or type 2. In addition, pooled analyses of long-term mortality and reinfarction outcomes were performed.

methodsWe searched Medline, Embase and Web of Science through January 2018 for observational studies or clinical trials classifying patients as either T1MI or T2MI. Studies with baseline characteristics allowing a comparison between both groups were included. Inverse variance random-effects models were used to pool risk ratios (RR).

resultsOverall, 93,194 patients from 20 included observational studies were classified as T1MI and 9291 as T2MI; corresponding to 87.9% and 8.8% of all patients diagnosed with MI. Inclusion of ST-elevation MI patients was inconsistent among studies. Coronary angiography was performed in 77.7% and 31.5% of all patients with T1MI and T2MI, respectively. From a subgroup of 11 studies, percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 79.2% of all patients classified as T1MI (range 44.2-93.0%) and 40.2% of all T2MI patients (range 0-87.5%). A meta-analysis of 6 studies (44,366 in total) on 2-year mortality showed worse outcome among T2MI patients (RR: 1.52, CI 1.07-2.17, P = 0.02; I

conclusionsClassification of T1MI and T2MI varies widely among studies. A standardized approach with clear definitions is needed to avoid misclassification and ensure appropriate patient management.

Indexed as

Coronary AngiographyGlobal HealthHumansMyocardial InfarctionSurvival RateAcute coronary syndromeClassificationType 1 myocardial infarctionType 2 myocardial infarctionUniversal definition

Identifiers

PMID30535801

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.