ArticleCureus2020
Diurnal Variation in Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diurnal Variation in Mechanical Circulatory Support Initiation and Associated Outcomes.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives To determine whether the outcomes differ during regular hours as compared to off hours in patients with acute myocardial infarction who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods We conducted a prospective, interventional study of patients who presented to a specialized cardiac care center. Patients who satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the study. They were divided into two groups so that one group received intervention during regular working hours while the other group received intervention during 'off' hours. The data was collected through a self-constructed questionnaire. Cronbach's alpha was used to assess the internal consistency of the questionnaire, and it was found to be 0.75. The data obtained was analyzed on IBM's Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY). Results Out of 100 participants, 64 (64%) were males and 36 (36%) were females. The mean age of the participants was 58.58 ± 13.21 years. Most (44%) of the patients were diabetic. Inferior wall myocardial infarcts were more common in our study. Percutaneous intervention during 'off' hours was associated with more adverse outcomes. The differences in gender and angina requiring revascularization were statistically significant (p-value<0.05). Conclusion No significant difference in outcomes was observed in both groups of patients. Metacentric data from different institutes should be gathered for a comprehensive insight on this topic where door-to-balloon times and initiation of catheterization lab procedures are practiced in different ways.
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.