ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021
Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissections: A Systematic Review.
Review 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 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spontaneous coronary artery dissection in patients with prior psychophysical stress: a systematic review of case reports and case series.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Latin-American guidelines of recommendations at discharge from an acute coronary syndrome.Archivos de cardiologia de Mexico · 2024Guideline
- Myocardial Infarction with Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries: A Puzzle in Search of a Solution.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Case Report: Recurrent spontaneous coronary artery dissection involving the left main.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Myocardial Infarction in Young Adults: A Case Series and Comprehensive Review of Molecular and Clinical Mechanisms.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Bioresorbable scaffolds advances, challenges, and future directions.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Fibromuscular Dysplasia: An Overlooked Cause of Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection.Cureus · 2025Article
- Beyond the Norm: Decoding Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection as an Unusual Cause of Acute Coronary Syndrome.HCA healthcare journal of medicine · 2025Review
- Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection in a 19-Year-Old Male Athlete.JACC. Case reports · 2024Article
- Chest Pain: Wellens Syndrome Due to Spontaneous Dissection of the Left Anterior Descending Coronary Artery - A Case Report and Literature Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Spontaneous coronary artery dissection and fibromuscular dysplasia: insights into recent developments.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Advanced Cardiac Imaging and Women's Chest Pain: A Question of Gender.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- New Concepts on the Pathophysiology of Acute Coronary Syndrome.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Gender Differences in All-Cause Mortality after Acute Myocardial Infarction: Evidence for a Gender-Age Interaction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
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
Myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary artery disease due to spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) accounts for 5-8% of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) presentations. The demographic characteristics, risk factors, and management of patients with SCAD differ from those with atherosclerotic disease. The objective of this review is to provide a contemporary understanding of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and management of SCAD.
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.