Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32430519›Full record

ReviewHerz2020

Multivessel vs. culprit-lesion only percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

Hans-Josef Feistritzer, Alexander Jobs, Steffen Desch, Holger Thiele

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Herz, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Hans-Josef FeistritzerDepartment of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, Heart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig, Strümpellstr. 39, 04289, Leipzig, Germany. Hans-Josef.Feistritzer@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
Alexander JobsDepartment of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, Heart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig, Strümpellstr. 39, 04289, Leipzig, Germany.
Steffen DeschDepartment of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, Heart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig, Strümpellstr. 39, 04289, Leipzig, Germany.
Holger ThieleDepartment of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, Heart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig, Strümpellstr. 39, 04289, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The optimal treatment of non-infarct-related coronary arteries in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been a subject of debate for many years. Earlier medium-sized randomized controlled trials reported a benefit of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) primarily due to a reduction of subsequent revascularizations. Recently, the well-powered COMPLETE trial showed a reduction in the composite endpoint of cardiovascular mortality and myocardial reinfarction through complete revascularization. The present review summarizes the current evidence regarding revascularization strategies in STEMI patients.

Indexed as

Coronary Artery DiseasePercutaneous Coronary InterventionST Elevation Myocardial InfarctionHumansTreatment OutcomeMultivessel coronary artery diseasePrognosisRandomized controlled trialsRevascularization strategySTEMI

Identifiers

PMID32430519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.