ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
New R
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular 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.
- The predictive value of laboratory parameters for no-reflow phenomenon in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction following primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis.Clinical cardiology · 2024Pooled it
- A Machine Learning Model for the Prediction of No-Reflow Phenomenon in Acute Myocardial Infarction Using the CALLY Index.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- RCirculation reports · 2024Article
- Predictive value of the triglyceride-glucose index for no-reflow phenomenon after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by metabolic syndrome.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- Coronary No-Reflow after Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention-Current Knowledge on Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, Clinical Impact and Therapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Prediction models for major adverse cardiovascular events following ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and subgroup-specific performance.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Evaluating the prognostic validity of new R Materials and methods: From January 2017 to December 2018, a total of 401 patients with STEMI were continuously enrolled. According to the cut-off value, the patients were separated into two groups: R Results: With a sensitivity of 52.6% and a specificity of 73.1%, the optimal cut-off value for predicting no-reflow is R Conclusion: R
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.