ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2020
Comparative evaluation of 15-minute rapid diagnosis of ischemic heart disease by high-sensitivity quantification of cardiac biomarkers.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding Arteriosclerotic Heart Disease Patients Using Electronic Health Records: A Machine Learning and Shapley Additive exPlanations Approach.Healthcare informatics research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A rapid clinical diagnosis may efficiently improve the survival rate and prognosis of patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD). Therefore, a one-step, rapid and inexpensive analysis for the quick diagnosis of IHD was investigated in the present study. Consecutive patients who were subjected to myoglobin, cardiac troponin I and creatine kinase-MB isoenzyme assessment at the Emergency Department of Shenzhen Second People's Hospital (Shenzhen, China) between December 2017 and March 2018 prior to treatment were screened. Clinically applicable disposable strips were employed for quantification of the cardiac biomarkers. The analytical performance of the strips was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and compared with the traditional chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) method. The data of 391 participants were collected. At the baseline, 57 patients were diagnosed with IHD and 334 patients were diagnosed with other diseases. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the CLIA model was 0.787 (95% CI, 0.709-0.865) with a specificity of 76.7% and a sensitivity of 71.9%. At the optimal cutoff value of -1.867, the negative and the positive predictive value were 94.1 and 34.5%, respectively. The AUC of the disposable strip model was 0.792 (95% CI, 0.729-0.855). At the cutoff value of -1.820 or below, the negative predictive value was 94.9%, the positive predictive value was 28.9%, the specificity was 66.8% and the sensitivity was 79.0%. The P-value of the ROCs was 0.858, indicating no statistically significant difference between the two assay methods. The cost of the disposable strip was 50% of that of the CLIA method and it took only 25% of the time that was required for the quantification of the three cardiac markers by CLIA. In conclusion, the disposable strip provides a platform for point-of-care testing and may be an easy, rapid, reliable and cost-saving method for the diagnosis of IHD.
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.