ArticleSystematic reviews2022
Incidence of myocardial infarction in people with diabetes compared to those without diabetes: a systematic review protocol.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incidence of acute myocardial infarction in people with diabetes compared to those without diabetes: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- A meta-analysis evaluating indirectly GLP-1 receptor agonists and arrhythmias in patients with type 2 diabetes and myocardial infarction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Trends in acute myocardial infarction-related mortality among adults with type 1 vs. type 2 diabetes in the United States, 1999-2020.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiabetes mellitus is an established risk factor for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Incidence of AMI in people with diabetes remains significantly higher than in those without diabetes. However, published data are conflicting, and previous reviews in this field have some limitations regarding the definitions of AMI and source population (general population or people with diabetes as a population at risk) and concerning the statistical presentation of results.
aimsTo analyse the incidence of AMI in people with diabetes compared to those without diabetes and to investigate time trends.
methodsWe will perform a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS designed by an experienced information scientist. Two review authors will independently screen the abstracts and full texts of all references on the basis of inclusion criteria regarding types of study, types of population and the main outcome. Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias will be undertaken by two review authors working independently. We will assess incidence rate or cumulative incidence and relative risk of AMI comparing populations with and without diabetes. DISCUSSION: This review will summarise the available data concerning the incidence of AMI in people with and without diabetes and will thus contribute to the assessment and interpretation of the wide variations of incidence, relative risks and time trends of AMI in these populations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020145562.
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.