ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Clinical Validation of the Shock Index, Modified Shock Index, Delta Shock Index, and Shock Index-C for Emergency Department ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction of Hospital Mortality in Patients with ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Evolution of Risk Measurement Techniques and Assessment of Their Effectiveness (Review).Sovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine · 2024Pooled it
- Age shock index and age-modified shock index are valuable bedside prognostic tools for postdischarge mortality in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients.Annals of medicine · 2024Article
- Decoding cardiogenic shock: assessing shock index and its variants as prognostic indicators for in-hospital mortality.ESC heart failure · 2024Article
- Novel predictors of prognosis in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and the presence of spontaneous echo contrast: shock index, modified shock index and age-adjusted shock index.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2024Article
- Shock index creatinine: a new predictor of mortality in acute coronary syndrome patients.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Article
- [Relationship between the systolic-diastolic shock index and mortality in myocardial infarction].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2023Observational
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is a leading cause of death worldwide. A shock index (SI), modified SI (MSI), delta-SI, and shock index-C (SIC) are known predictors of STEMI. This retrospective cohort study was designed to compare the predictive value of the SI, MSI, delta-SI, and SIC with thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) risk scales. Method: Patients > 20 years old with STEMI who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were included. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis with the Youden index was performed to calculate the optimal cutoff values for these predictors. Results: Overall, 1552 adult STEMI cases were analyzed. The thresholds for the emergency department (ED) SI, MSI, SIC, and TIMI risk scales for in-hospital mortality were 0.75, 0.97, 21.00, and 5.5, respectively. Accordingly, ED SIC had better predictive power than the ED SI and ED MSI. The predictive power was relatively higher than TIMI risk scales, but the difference did not achieve statistical significance. After adjusting for confounding factors, the ED SI > 0.75, MSI > 0.97, SIC > 21.0, and TIMI risk scales > 5.5 were statistically and significantly associated with in-hospital mortality of STEMI. Compared with the ED SI and MSI, SIC (>21.0) had better sensitivity (67.2%, 95% CI, 58.6−75.9%), specificity (83.5%, 95% CI, 81.6−85.4%), PPV (24.8%, 95% CI, 20.2−29.6%), and NPV (96.9%, 95% CI, 96.0−97.9%) for in-hospital mortality of STEMI. Conclusions: SIC had better discrimination ability than the SI, MSI, and delta-SI. Compared with the TIMI risk scales, the ACU value of SIC was still higher. Therefore, SIC might be a convenient and rapid tool for predicting the outcome of STEMI.
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.