ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Application of Modern Clinical Risk Scores in the Global Assessment of Risks Related to the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Everyday Medical Practice.
Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The predictive value of machine learning for mortality risk in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of medical research · 2023Pooled it
- Nomogram Predicting In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with Myocardial Infarction Treated with Primary Coronary Interventions Based on Logistic and Angiographic Predictors.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Literature Overview.Cureus · 2024Review
- Assessment of In-Hospital Mortality and Its Risk Factors in Patients with Myocardial Infarction Considering the Logistical Aspects of the Treatment Process-A Single-Center, Retrospective, Observational Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Observational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article presents an overview of contemporary risk assessment systems used in patients with myocardial infarction. The full range of risk scales, both recommended by the European Society of Cardiology and others published in recent years, is presented. Scales for assessing the risk of ischemia/death as well as for assessing the risk of bleeding are presented. A separate section is devoted to systems assessing the integrated risk associated with both ischemia and bleeding. In the first part of the work, each of the risk scales is described in detail, including the clinical trials/registers on the basis of which they were created, the statistical methods used to develop them, as well as the specification of their individual parameters. The next chapter presents the practical application of a given scale in the patient risk assessment process, the timing of its application on the timeline of myocardial infarction, as well as a critical assessment of its potential advantages and limitations. The last part of the work is devoted to the presentation of potential directions for the development of risk assessment systems in the future.
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.