SynthesisBMJ open2022
Prognostic and diagnostic accuracy of intracoronary electrocardiogram recorded during percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Image and intracavitary electrocardiogram-guided arm port placement in colorectal cancer: A retrospective comparative study.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
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
objectiveIntracoronary ECG (IC-ECG) recording has been shown to be sensitive and reliable for detecting myocardial viability and local myocardial ischaemia in some studies. But IC-ECG is neither widely used during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) nor recommended in guidelines. This up-to-date meta-analysis of published studies was conducted to evaluate the prognostic and diagnostic accuracy of IC-ECG recorded during PCI.
methodsRelevant studies were identified by searches of MEDLINE until 19 June 2021. Observational and diagnostic studies which reported the prognostic or diagnostic accuracy of IC-ECG were included. Data were extracted independently by two authors. Summary estimates of clinical outcomes were obtained using a random effects model. Summary diagnostic accuracy was obtained by using a Bayesian bivariate random effects model.
resultsOf the 12 included studies, 7 studies reported the clinical outcomes (821 patients) and 6 studies reported the diagnostic accuracy (485 patients) of IC-ECG. The pooled ORs with 95% CIs of ST-segment elevation recorded by IC-ECG were 4.65 (1.69 to 12.77), 5.08 (1.10 to 23.44), 4.53 (0.79 to 25.90) and 1.83 (0.93 to 3.62) for major adverse cardiac events, myocardial infarction, cardiac death and revascularisation, respectively. The weighted mean difference were 6.49 (95% CIs 3.84 to 9.14) for ejection fraction when ST-segment resolution was recorded, and 0.86 (95% CIs -8.55 to 10.26) when ST-segment elevation was recorded. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ST-segment elevation were 0.78 (95% credibility intervals 0.64 to 0.89) and 0.87 (95% credibility intervals 0.75 to 0.94), respectively.
conclusionsThese findings provide quantitative data supporting that IC-ECG had promising diagnostic ability for local myocardial injury, and could predict clinical outcomes.
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.