SynthesisJournal of cardiovascular translational research2020
The Level of Circulating Microparticles in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of cardiovascular translational research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Exercise on Extracellular Vesicles in Patients with Metabolic Dysfunction: a Systematic Review.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2023Pooled it
- Exercise and Circulating Microparticles in Healthy Subjects.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2021Pooled it
- Endothelial Cell-Derived Extracellular Vesicles Allow to Differentiate Between Various Endotypes of INOCA: A Multicentre, Prospective, Cohort Study.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2025Article
- Research into New Molecular Mechanisms in Thrombotic Diseases Paves the Way for Innovative Therapeutic Approaches.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Extracellular Vesicles in Atherosclerosis: State of the Art.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Proteomics analysis of coronary blood microparticles in patients with acute myocardial infarction.Cardiology journal · 2023Article
- Pathophysiology of Coagulation and Emerging Roles for Extracellular Vesicles in Coagulation Cascades and Disorders.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Review
- Size Distribution of Microparticles: A New Parameter to Predict Acute Lung Injury After Cardiac Surgery With Cardiopulmonary Bypass.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Cerebral derailment after myocardial infarct: mechanisms and effects of the signaling from the ischemic heart to brain.Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany) · 2022Review
- Extracellular Vesicles and Thrombosis: Update on the Clinical and Experimental Evidence.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Centrifugation Removes a Population of Large Vesicles, or "Macroparticles," Intermediate in Size to RBCs and Microvesicles.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Diagnostic and Prognostic Biomarkers for Myocardial Infarction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2020Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsTo assess the correlation between microparticles (MPs) and subgroups of coronary heart disease (CHD), including stable angina (SA), unstable angina (UA), and myocardial infarction (MI).
methodsA literature search was carried out systematically to identify available case-control studies. The level of MPs was compared and MPs' merged standardized mean differences (SMDs) were pooled for the meta-analysis.
resultsSix studies met the inclusion criteria and were used for systematic review and meta-analysis. The level of MPs was higher in patients with CHD than that in the NS (normal subjects) group (SMD 2.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.70-2.85; P = 0.000), and was also significantly different in subgroups of CHD (UA vs SA: SMD 2.35, 95% CI 1.56-3.14, P = 0.000; MI vs SA: SMD 3.08, 95% CI 2.07-4.09, P = 0.000; MI vs UA: SMD 0.83, 95% CI 0.41-1.26, P = 0.000). The similar results were also found in subgroups analyses of CD31
conclusionThe level of MPs, especially CD31
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.