ArticleStroke and vascular neurology2021
Analytical validation of GMEX rapid point-of-care
Article in Stroke and vascular neurology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy and technical characteristics of CYP2C19 point of care tests: a systematic review.Pharmacogenomics · 2024Pooled it
- Trial
- Clinical Application of Pharmacogenomics in Stroke Management: Current Evidence and Future Directions.Journal of stroke · 2026Review
- CYP2C19 point-of-care testing: where are we now and where should we go?The pharmacogenomics journal · 2025Review
- Review
- LDL-C Levels and Bleeding Risk in Patients Taking DAPT After Minor Ischemic Stroke or TIA.JAMA neurology · 2024Article
- Article
- Clopidogrel with aspirin in High-risk patients with Acute Non-disabling Cerebrovascular Events II (CHANCE-2): rationale and design of a multicentre randomised trial.Stroke and vascular neurology · 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
15 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeRapid genotyping is useful for guiding early antiplatelet therapy in patients with high-risk nondisabling ischaemic cerebrovascular events (HR-NICE). Conventional genetic testing methods used in
methodsHealthy individuals and patients with history of cardiovascular diseases (n=408) were enrolled from six centres of the CHANCE-2 trial. We compared the laboratory-based genomic test results with Sanger sequencing test results for accuracy verification. Next, we demonstrated the accuracy, timeliness and clinical operability of the GMEX system compared with laboratory-based technology (YZY Kit) to verify whether the GMEX system satisfies the needs of the CHANCE-2 trial.
resultsGenotypes reported by the GMEX system showed 100% agreement with those determined by using the YZY Kit and Sanger sequencing for all three
conclusionsOur data suggest that the GMEX system is a reliable and feasible point-of-care system for rapid
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.