ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2023
External validation of the GRACE risk score in patients with myocardial infarction in Hungary.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early EASIX and Short-Term Mortality After Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Dual-Cohort Prognostic Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Machine learning redevelopment of GRACE, ACEF, and TIMI scores for 6-month mortality.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Prognostic Associations of the Naples Score for Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and a Prognostic Meta-Analysis.Cardiology research and practice · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence Tools in Myocardial Infarction Prognosis: Evaluating the Performance of Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models.Current cardiology reviews · 2026Review
- Recent highlights on coronary artery disease from theInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Literature confirms that the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score provides a better risk evaluation than clinical judgment in patients with acute myocardial infarction. We aimed to externally validate the GRACE risk score in unselected patients with myocardial infarction in Hungary. Methods: Data from the comprehensive Hungarian Myocardial Infarction Registry (HUMIR), a national registry that collects data on consecutive acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients, were used. Hospitals registered 102,939 infarction events in the HUMIR between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2020. The data required to calculate GRACE risk score were available for 75,199 events. We studied the 6-months, 1-year, and 3-year outcomes. We calculated widely used metrics to characterise calibration (calibration curve, calibration intercept and slope, Eavg, Emax, and E90) and discrimination ( Results: The risk of low-risk patients was underestimated, and the risk of high-risk patients was overestimated. However, the deviation was small, especially for the three-year survival (E90 was 0.15, 0.22, and 0.08). Discrimination was good, with an AUC of approximately 0.8, and was very similar in all the periods. Conclusions: These data confirmed the usefulness of GRACE risk score in selecting high-risk patients with myocardial infarction in the Hungarian population.
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.