SynthesisClinical medicine & research2019
Assessing Prognosis of Acute Coronary Syndrome in Recent Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Clinical medicine & research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The diagnostic value of miR-338-3p in acute coronary syndrome and its correlation with MACE occurrence.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative Ten-Year Outcomes in Chronic and Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients Undergoing Invasive Diagnostics-Insights from the KORONEF Registry.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Article
- Role of physiology in the management of multivessel disease among patients with acute coronary syndrome.AsiaIntervention · 2024Review
- Article
- Elevated plasma Sirtuin2 level predicts heart failure after acute myocardial infarction.Journal of thoracic disease · 2021Article
- Correlation between exercise, personal income level and health-related quality of life in patients with newly diagnosed stable angina.Military Medical Research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is no recent comprehensive overview of contemporary clinical trials assessing short and long-term outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This paper reviews factors from recent clinical trials that influenced prognosis in patients with ACS. Cochrane and PubMed databases were screened systematically for clinical trials published in the English literature reporting on ACS prognosis. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text. Studies meeting inclusion criteria evaluated the impact of modern practice on prognosis. In vitro and animal models studies, conference abstracts, imaging studies, and review articles were excluded. Disagreement in inclusion criteria was resolved by consensus. A large study of 8,859 patients showed no difference in all-cause mortality between 31 days and 2 years in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) compared to those with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). Other studies showed a significant increase in all-cause mortality in patients with STEMI within the first 30 days, with NSTEMI patients exhibiting a higher mortality rate compared to those with SIHD during the 2-year follow-up period. Our review found that women have a poorer short-term prognosis compared to men. Additionally, reports from patients receiving comprehensive and coordinated care showed longer survival rates. In view of the improved prognosis demonstrated for patients suffering from ACS, assessing prognosis in patients represents a formidable task in modern practice. Our review highlights the need for further evidence-based studies evaluating long-term outcomes on diagnostic and treatment strategies.
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.