ArticleMedicine2019
Prevalence and associated factors of mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention for adult patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-term all-cause mortality rate after ST-elevation myocardial infarction and its predictors: ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Cohort in Isfahan Study.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2025Article
- Prevalence and associated factors of mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention for adult patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2023Review
- Role of Gender on the Outcomes of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients Following Primary Coronary Angioplasty.Cureus · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been one of the fastest growing therapeutic interventions for patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, the mortality of patients with STEMI after PCI is uncertain currently. There is a paucity of systematic review on the associated factors of mortality among patients with STEMI after PCI. Therefore, this meta-analysis was designed to synthesize available evidence on the prevalence and associated factors of mortality after PCI for adult patients with STEMI.
methodsBoth case-control and cohort studies reporting on mortality after PCI for patients with STEMI, published in Chinese and English will be eligible for inclusion. Studies from 12 databases covering the period from 2008 to present will be considered for systematic searches. Two reviewers will independently screen and select studies, extract data, and assess methodologic quality. When available, meta-analysis will be performed. Pooled proportions of mortality, and proportions in the exposed and unexposed groups, and population attributable fraction of each factor will be calculated by a suitable transformation of proportions. If necessary, meta-regression models, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, funnel plot, and Egger test will be performed. Narrative synthesis will be done where meta-analysis cannot be performed. Reporting of this protocol will comply with the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses (PRISMA-P) guidelines.
resultsThis systematic review will be developed according to the meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines.
conclusionThis study will provide a comprehensive review on the available evidence regarding the prevalence and associated factors of mortality for patients with STEMI following PCI. This review will be constrained by the divergence of definition and assessment of specific factors between studies. However, the development of a qualitative description of definition and assessment tools will also provide an overview of the current practice. Formal ethical approval is not required since the secondary data will be collected for systematic review. The findings will be disseminated in a relevant peer-reviewed journal and academic presentations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017070969.
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.