Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31061732›Full record

ReviewCardiology research and practice2019

Biomarkers of Atrial Fibrillation: Which One Is a True Marker?

Pipin Ardhianto, Yoga Yuniadi

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cardiology research and practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Biomarkers Utility: At the Borderline between Cardiology and Neurology.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2021
    Review
  7. Observational
  8. Genome-wide analysis of circular RNA expression profiles in patients with atrial fibrillation.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2020
    Article
  9. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pipin ArdhiantoDepartment of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Diponegoro, Semarang, Indonesia.
Yoga YuniadiDepartment of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, National Cardiovascular Center Harapan Kita, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0003-2792-1187
Diponegoro University · IDUniversity of Indonesia · ID

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmias and associated with the risk of stroke and death. Continuous development of the diagnostic tool and prognostic stratification may lead to optimal management of AF. The use of biomarkers in the management of AF has been grown as an interesting topic. However, the AF biomarkers are not yet well established in the major guidelines. Among these biomarkers, a lot of data show troponin and brain natriuretic peptides are promising for the prediction of future events. The troponin elevation in AF patients may not necessarily be diagnosed as myocardial infarction or significant coronary artery stenosis, and brain natriuretic peptide elevation may not necessarily confirm heart failure. Troponin T and troponin I may predict postoperative AF. Furthermore, troponin and brain natriuretic peptide gave better prognostic performance when compared with the risk score available today.

Identifiers

PMID31061732
PMCPMC6466952
OpenAlexW2926137231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.