ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2020
Clinical investigation of acute myocardial infarction according to age subsets.
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 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Proteomics-based investigation of the protective effect and mechanism of Agari-5 in rats with myocardial infarction.World journal of cardiology · 2025Article
- Cardiac magnetic resonance shows increased adverse ventricular remodeling in younger patients after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.European radiology · 2023Observational
- Establishment of a prognostic model based on the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score for patients with first-time acute myocardial infarction.The Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
- Clinical Study on Characteristics and Risk Factors of Coronary Artery Lesions in Young Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A growing number of 'Young' patients less than 40 years of age are being hospitalized with a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) due to increased prevalence of risk factors for atherosclerosis. The aim of this study was to compare clinical characteristics and performances of AMI between young and elderly patients. We conducted a retrospective study to compare AMI in young patients and elder patients. Based on the medical record databases in our hospital, we enrolled 114 'young' AMI patients (age ≤42 years) and 179 'elder' AMI patients (≥60 years), and then collected and analyzed their demographic information, clinical performances, and coronary angiography results. In the young AMI group, the proportion of male patients was higher than that in the elder AMI group (94.7 vs. 64.2%, P<0.05). Compared with the elder AMI patients, young patients had higher rates of smoking history and positive family medical history, but lower rates of hypertension and diabetes. Elder patients with AMI were more likely to develop various clinical performances, and multiple-branch lesions; however, young AMI patients had relatively fewer symptoms, and the tissue lesions were more limited. The clinical profiles of AMI in young patients were different from that in elder AMI patients. Specific interventions should be carried out to prevent and control the prevalence of AMI in the young population.
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.