ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2019
CHA
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2019. 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.
- A systematic review and bioinformatic study on clinical, paraclinical, and genetic factors predisposing to stent restenosis following percutaneous coronary intervention.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Revascularization outcomes in diabetic patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome with non-ST elevation.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2022Article
- A prediction model based on platelet parameters, lipid levels, and angiographic characteristics to predict in-stent restenosis in coronary artery disease patients implanted with drug-eluting stents.Lipids in health and disease · 2021Article
- Adropin inhibits the phenotypic modulation and proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cells during neointimal hyperplasia by activating the AMPK/ACC signaling pathway.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the ability of two scoring systems (CHA
methodsThis retrospective study enrolled patients who underwent coronary angiography to assess coronary artery disease severity secondary to a diagnosis of stable angina or acute coronary syndrome that subsequently underwent DES implantations. Demographic, clinical, angiographic and biochemical parameters were compared between those patients that experienced ISR and those that did not during the study follow-up period. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate associations between the baseline parameters, the two scoring systems and ISR risk.
resultsA total of 358 patients (non-ISR group n = 316; ISR group n = 42) participated in the study. Compared with the non-ISR group, more patients in the ISR group had diabetes mellitus and received stents with smaller diameters but longer lengths. There were no significant differences with regard the predictive ability for ISR of either the CHA
conclusionsThe CHA
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.