Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30904835›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2019

Effects of ischaemic postconditioning on outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis.

Zhenhua Xing, Liang Tang, Jiabing Huang, Xiaofan Peng, Xinqun Hu

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhenhua XingDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Second Xiangya Hospital, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Liang TangDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Second Xiangya Hospital, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Jiabing HuangDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Second Xiangya Hospital, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Xiaofan PengDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Second Xiangya Hospital, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Xinqun HuDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Second Xiangya Hospital, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University · CNCentral South University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of ischaemic postconditioning (IPC) therapy on hard clinical endpoints in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).

designSystematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of IPC on the outcomes of patients with STEMI. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for relevant articles published prior to May 1, 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised trials comparing conventional PPCI to PPCI combined with IPC in STEMI patients were included. The primary endpoint was heart failure. Secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiac death, heart failure and MI. The Cochrane Reviewer's Handbook 4.2 was used to assess the risk of bias. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Relevant data were extracted by two independent investigators. We derived pooled risk ratios (RRs) with random effects models. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed.

resultsTen studies that had enrolled 3137 patients were included. PPCI combined with IPC failed to reduce heart failure (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.26, p=0.47; absolute risk: 3.64% in the IPC group and 4.11% in the PPCI only group), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.27, p=0.68; absolute risk: 5.07% in the IPC group and 5.27% in the PPCI onlygroup), MACE (RR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.32, p=0.69; absolute risk: 9.37% in the IPC group and 8.93% in the PPCI only group), cardiac death (RR: 1.28, 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.93, p=0.24; absolute risk: 4.28% in the IPC group and 3.25% in the PPCI only group) and MI (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.38 to 3.12, p=0.88; absolute risk: 3.61% in the IPC group and 3.44% in the PPCI only group).

conclusionsIPC combined with PPCI does not reduce heart failure, MACE and all-cause mortality compared with traditional PPCI in patients with STEMI. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017063959.

Indexed as

Ischemic PostconditioningPercutaneous Coronary InterventionHeart FailureHumansMortalityRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicST Elevation Myocardial InfarctionTreatment Outcomeall-cause mortalityischaemic postconditioning therapymajor adverse cardiac eventsmeta-analysispercutaneous coronary intervention

Identifiers

PMID30904835
PMCPMC6475223
OpenAlexW2925001124

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.