Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37635156›Full record

ReviewNature medicine2023

A new clinical classification of acute myocardial infarction.

Bertil Lindahl, Nicholas L Mills

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
14.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Implications of a new clinical classification of acute myocardial infarction.European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Deciphering the role of nicotinamide metabolism and melanin-related genes in acute myocardial infarction: a machine learning approach integrating bioinformatics analysis.The Korean journal of physiology & pharmacology : official journal of the Korean Physiological Society and the Korean Society of Pharmacology · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Bertil LindahlDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5795-0061
Nicholas L MillsBHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. nick.mills@ed.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0533-7991
University of Edinburgh · GBUppsala University · SE

Funding

British Heart Foundation CH/F/21/90010British Heart Foundation RE/18/5/34216British Heart Foundation RG/20/10/34966
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The existence of a universal definition of myocardial infarction-which involves classification into multiple subtypes-has promoted the use of standard diagnostic criteria across the world. However, this classification has not been applied consistently in practice and is perceived by some as too complicated. Where there is diagnostic uncertainty, patients have worse outcomes. This uncertainty has also impacted on the validity of the diagnosis of myocardial infarction in clinical trials. To address these issues and to encourage clinicians to recognize that different mechanisms of myocardial infarction have differing treatment implications, we propose an alternative clinical classification for consideration; one that recognizes that myocardial infarction can arise spontaneously, secondary to another condition, or as a complication of a cardiac procedure. This classification is aligned with clinical practice and proposes more objective and specific diagnostic criteria that, if agreed by international consensus, could reduce diagnostic uncertainty in practice and research.

Indexed as

Myocardial InfarctionConsensusHumansUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID37635156
OpenAlexW4386203906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.