Clinical, Laboratory, and Procedural Predictors of No-Reflow in Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. The Predictive Value of ALBI Score for No-Reflow in Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
   Article
2. Evaluating the Impact and Financial Implications of Immediate versus Delayed Stenting Strategies in High Thrombus Burden Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024
   Article
3. Predilation Ballooning in High Thrombus Laden STEMIs: An Independent Predictor of Slow Flow/No-Reflow in Patients Undergoing Emergent Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2023
   Article

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.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as