Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35908241›Full record

SynthesisEuropean geriatric medicine2022

Comparing health outcomes between coronary interventions in frail patients aged 75 years or older with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review.

Gregory W van Wyk, Shlomo Berkovsky, David Fraile Navarro, Enrico Coiera

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European geriatric medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gregory W van WykAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, 75 Talavera Rd, Macquarie Park, NSW, 2113, Australia. docgregvw@outlook.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7986-7410
Shlomo BerkovskyAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, 75 Talavera Rd, Macquarie Park, NSW, 2113, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2638-4121
David Fraile NavarroAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, 75 Talavera Rd, Macquarie Park, NSW, 2113, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1108-7071
Enrico CoieraAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, 75 Talavera Rd, Macquarie Park, NSW, 2113, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6444-6584
Macquarie University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess current evidence comparing the impact of available coronary interventions in frail patients aged 75 years or older with different subtypes of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) on health outcomes.

methodsScopus, Embase and PubMed were systematically searched in May 2022 for studies comparing outcomes between coronary interventions in frail older patients with ACS. Studies were excluded if they provided no objective assessment of frailty during the index admission, under-represented patients aged 75 years or older, or included patients with non-ACS coronary disease without presenting results for the ACS subgroup. Following data extraction from the included studies, a qualitative synthesis of results was undertaken.

resultsNine studies met all eligibility criteria. All eligible studies were observational. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across study designs regarding ACS subtypes included, frailty assessments used, coronary interventions compared, and outcomes studied. All studies were assessed to be at high risk of bias. Notably, adjustment for confounders was limited or not adequately reported in all studies. The comparative assessment suggested a possible efficacy signal for invasive treatment relative to conservative treatment but possibly at the risk of increased bleeding events.

conclusionsThere is a paucity of evidence comparing health outcomes between different coronary interventions in frail patients aged 75 years or older with ACS. Available evidence is at high risk of bias. Given the growing importance of ACS in frail patients aged 75 years or older, new studies are needed to inform optimal ACS care for this population. Future studies should rigorously adjust for confounders.

Indexed as

Acute Coronary SyndromeFrailtyAgedFrail ElderlyHospitalizationHumansOutcome Assessment, Health Care75 years or olderAcute coronary syndromeAngiographyCoronary artery bypass graftingFrailtyPercutaneous coronary intervention

Identifiers

PMID35908241
PMCPMC9553773
OpenAlexW4288987659

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.