ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Inconsistent Findings of Cardiac Troponin T and I in Clinical Routine Diagnostics: Factors of Influence.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Significance of Cardiac Troponins as an Identification Tool in COVID-19 Patients Using Biosensors: An Update.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac troponins are crucial for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. Despite known differences in their diagnostic implication, there are no recommendations for only one of the two troponins, cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and troponin T (cTnT) so far. In an everyday routine diagnostic, cTnT (Roche) as well as cTnI (Abbott) were measured in 5667 samples from 3264 patient cases. We investigated the number of identical or discrepant troponin findings. Regarding cTnI, we considered both, sex-dependent and unisex cutoffs. In particular, the number of cTnT positive and cTnI negative results was strikingly high in 14.0% of cTnT positive samples and increases to 23.8% by using sex-specific cTnI cutoffs. This group was considerably greater than the group of cTnI positive and cTnT negative results, also after elimination of patients with an eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m
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.