Observational studyBMC cardiovascular disorders2020
New CHA
Observational study in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive value of the CHA₂DS₂-VASc-HSF score for slow flow during rotational atherectomy in patients with severe coronary artery calcification.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Machine learning to predict no reflow and in-hospital mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction that underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Plasma calprotectin was associated with platelet activation and no-reflow phenomenon in acute coronary syndrome.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2020Article
- Predictive Value of CHAClinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe no-reflow phenomenon (NRP) is a serious complication of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) and is an independent predictor of poor prognosis. We aimed to find a simple but effective risk stratification method for the prediction of NRP.
methodsThis retrospective single-center study included 454 consecutive patients diagnosed with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and treated by PPCI, who were admitted to our emergency department between January 2017 and March 2019. The patients were divided according to the post-PPCI thrombolysis in the myocardial infarction flow rate: the NRP group and the control group. The CHADS
resultsA total of 454 patients were analyzed in this study: 80 in the no-reflow group and 374 in the control group. The incidence of NRP was 17.6%. Creatine kinase-myocardial band, Killip class, stent length, and multivessel disease also independently predicted NRP. The CHA
conclusionAlthough the CHADS
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.