ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2020
Comment on "The relationship between atherogenic index of plasma and no‑reflow in patients with acute ST‑segment elevation myocardial infarction who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention".
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2020. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The relationship between the atherogenic index of plasma and postoperative myocardial injury following non-cardiac surgery under general anaesthesia: a retrospective cohort study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Atherogenic index of plasma: A valuable novel index to distinguish patients with unstable atherogenic plaques.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2022Article
- Reply to the letter to the editor: [Comment on "The relationship between atherogenic index of plasma and no-reflow in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention].The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We read with great pleasure the interesting study evaluating "The relationship between atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) and no-reflow in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention" by Süleymanoğlu M et al. The most important problem in the study was that they miscalculated their patients' AIP values. As a result of this miscalculation, all patients seemed to be at high cardiac risk. When calculating AIP, the unit of both triglyceride (TG) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels should be taken in mmol. In calculating the AIP value, Süleymanoğlu et al. used the units as mg/dl and found the median values as 0.50 (patients with noreflow, high cardiac risk) and 0.39 (patients without noreflow, high cardiac risk), respectively. When we calculate the estimated AIP by converting units to mmol, it is 0.15 (patients with noreflow, intermediate cardiac risk) and 0.03 (patients with noreflow, low cardiac risk), respectively. Interestingly, their patients' cholesterol levels such as total cholesterol, TG, low-density lipoprotein, and HDL were very lower than those of healthy individuals in their country. We believe that the authors should explain this situation.
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.