ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2020
Risk Assessment Using Risk Scores in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Stress hyperglycemia ratio improves 28-day mortality prediction beyond GRACE score in critically ill patients with acute coronary syndrome: a retrospective cohort study from MIMIC-IV.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Application of HEART, GRACE 2.0 and TIMI scores for risk stratification of chest pain: a single-centre external pilot study in a Sri Lankan population.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Validity of the 2019 European Society of Cardiology Pre-Test Probability (2019 ESC-PTP) for predicting obstructive coronary artery disease among Malaysians.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Improving chest pain risk assessment: validation of HEART, TIMI, GRACE, EDACS-ADP, and HET for MACE prediction in the emergency department.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Do We Actually Need a New Scale? Improving Postpartum Depression Screening in Malaysia: A Narrative Literature Review.The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2025Review
- Patient and Physician Perspectives on the Benefits and Risks of Antiplatelet Therapy for Acute Coronary Syndrome.Cardiology and therapy · 2024Article
- Development of the first Iranian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment, and secondary prevention of acute coronary syndrome.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence based prediction model of in-hospital mortality among females with acute coronary syndrome: for the Jerusalem Platelets Thrombosis and Intervention in Cardiology (JUPITER-12) Study Group.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Cholesterol goals, statin use and residual cardiovascular risk estimated by SMART score: Study of a Nicaraguan population.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2023Article
- A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study of Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients' Quality of Life and Drug Prescription Patterns at Riyadh Region Hospitals, Saudi Arabia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Use of machine learning models to predict in-hospital mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome.Clinical cardiology · 2023Article
- Long-term residual cardiovascular risk after acute coronary syndrome: antithrombotic treatment options.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2022Review
- Association of GRACE Risk Score with Coronary Artery Disease Complexity in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- ACEF performed better than other risk scores in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome during long term follow-up.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2021Observational
- Diagnosis and Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome: What is New and Why? Insight From the 2020 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Risk scores are widely used in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) prior to treatment decision-making at different points in time. At initial hospital presentation, risk scores are used to assess the risk for developing major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and can guide clinicians in either discharging the patients at low risk or swiftly admitting and treating the patients at high risk for MACE. During hospital admission, risk assessment is performed to estimate mortality, residual ischemic and bleeding risk to guide further in-hospital management (e.g., timing of coronary angiography) and post-discharge management (e.g., duration of dual antiplatelet therapy). In the months and years following ACS, long term risk can also be assessed to evaluate current treatment strategies (e.g., intensify or reduce pharmaceutical treatment options). As multiple risk scores have been developed over the last decades, this review summarizes the most relevant risk scores used in ACS patients.
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.