ArticleComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2022
Discussion on Repolarization Reserve between Patients with Coronary Heart Disease and Normal Controls.
Article in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 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.
- Diagnostic performance of dynamic electrocardiography in the diagnosis of myocardial ischemic attack in coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Optimal dose and type of exercise to improve cognitive function in patients with mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Pooled it
- Cardiac Safety of Intranasal Chlorpheniramine: An Exposure-Based Risk Assessment.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the repolarization reserve of normal controls (NCs) and patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). Methods: From January 1st, 2010 to December 31st, 2018, 200 age- and gender-matched inpatients in the Second Hospital of Shanxi Medical University and Heji Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College were selected for treadmill exercise test (TET), including 67 patients in the myocardial ischemia group, 66 patients in the suspected myocardial ischemia group, and 67 patients in the normal control group. Coronary angiography (CAG) was performed on 49 of 133 patients in the myocardial ischemia group and the suspected myocardial ischemia group, and 9 positives and 40 negatives were identified. The heart rate (HR) and QT interval of TET examiners before exercise, during exercise (90 beats/min, 120 beats/min, maximum HR), and in the recovery period (1 minute and 3 minutes after exercise) were reviewed, and QTc values were calculated after being corrected by BaZett's. Results: The mean QTc values in NCs were all below 452 ms, before exercise, during exercise (90 beats/min, 120 beats/min and maximum HR), and during the recovery period (1 minute and 3 minutes after exercise). The comparison results of the RR interval between the two groups revealed Conclusions: NCs have good repolarization reserve. CAG can confirm true myocardial ischemia patients (i.e., patients with CHD) among myocardial ischemia and suspected myocardial ischemia patients screened by TET. Patients with positive CAG have poor repolarization reserve as QT interval represents ventricular repolarization adaptability.
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.