Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30697054›Full record

ReviewVascular health and risk management2019

Biomarkers in acute myocardial infarction: current perspectives.

Suleyman Aydin, Kader Ugur, Suna Aydin, İbrahim Sahin, Meltem Yardim

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Vascular health and risk management, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 203 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
203citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–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

203 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

143 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Suleyman AydinDepartment of Medical Biochemistry and Clinical Biochemistry (Firat Hormones Research Group), Medical School, Firat University, Elazig 23119, Turkey, saydin1@hotmail.com.
Kader UgurDepartment of Internal Medicine (Endocrinology and Metabolism Diseases), School of Medicine, Firat University, Elazig 23119, Turkey.
Suna AydinCardiovascular Surgery Department, Elazig Research and Education Hospital, Health Science University, Elazig 23119, Turkey.
İbrahim SahinDepartment of Medical Biochemistry and Clinical Biochemistry (Firat Hormones Research Group), Medical School, Firat University, Elazig 23119, Turkey, saydin1@hotmail.com.
Meltem YardimDepartment of Medical Biochemistry and Clinical Biochemistry (Firat Hormones Research Group), Medical School, Firat University, Elazig 23119, Turkey, saydin1@hotmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAcute myocardial infarction (AMI) is the most common cause of death in the world. Comprehensive risk assessment of patients presenting with chest pain and eliminating undesirable results should decrease morbidity and mortality rates, increase the quality of life of patients, and decrease health expenditure in many countries. In this study, the advantages and disadvantages of the enzymatic and nonenzymatic biomarkers used in the diagnosis of patients with AMI are given in historical sequence, and some candidate biomarkers - hFABP, GPBB, S100, PAPP-A, RP, TNF, IL6, IL18, CD40 ligand, MPO, MMP9, cell-adhesion molecules, oxidized LDL, glutathione, homocysteine, fibrinogen, and D-dimer procalcitonin - with a possible role in the diagnosis of AMI are discussed.

methodsThe present study was carried out using meta-analyses, reviews of clinical trials, evidence-based medicine, and guidelines indexed in PubMed and Web of Science.

resultsThese numerous AMI biomarkers guide clinical applications (diagnostic methods, risk stratification, and treatment). Today, however, TnI remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of AMI. Details in the text will be given of many biomarkers for the diagnosis of AMI.

conclusionWe evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of routine enzymatic and nonenzymatic biomarkers and the literature evidence of other candidate biomarkers in the diagnosis of AMI, and discuss challenges and constraints that limit translational use from bench to bedside.

Indexed as

BiomarkersCreatine Kinase, MB FormHumansMyocardial InfarctionMyoglobinPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsRisk FactorsTroponin ITroponin TBiomarkersCreatine Kinase, MB FormMyoglobinTroponin ITroponin Tacute myocardial infarctioncardiac peptidecardiac protein

Identifiers

PMID30697054
PMCPMC6340361

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.