ReviewCardiovascular drugs and therapy1988
Risk factor intervention and prognosis after acute myocardial infarction.
Review in Cardiovascular drugs and therapy, 1988. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Randomised controlled trial of cardioprotective diet in patients with recent acute myocardial infarction: results of one year follow up.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1992Trial
- Physical resilience after a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease among offspring of long-lived siblings.European journal of ageing · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The review is restricted to the three main risk factors of ischemic heart disease (IHD): cholesterol, blood pressure, and smoking. It deals with the question of whether these risk factors continue to affect prognosis after a first MI, without tackling the problem of how successful risk factor modification can be. Thus, neither primary nor secondary prevention trials are analyzed. The evidence from large, well conducted prospective studies shows that, although relative risk is greater prior to MI than thereafter, absolute risk is higher post-MI because of higher overall mortality. Although clinical characteristics and consequences of the acute event have a stronger prognostic power, it is still worthwhile to correct risk factors post-MI for a number of reasons.
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.