ReviewCureus2023
Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes of Patients With Myocardia Infarction (MI) With Non-obstructive Coronary Arteries and MI With Obstructive Coronary Arteries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- A narrative review of electrocardiogram manifestation of myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA).Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare long-term outcomes in patients with myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) and patients with myocardial infarction with obstructive coronary arteries (MIOCA). This meta-analysis was conducted according to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The literature search was conducted in online databases including PubMed and Web of Science from 2010 onwards. Primary outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction. A total of 16 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that the risk of MACE was higher in MIOCA patients (risk ratio (RR): 1.47, 95%CI: 1.43-1.52, p-value: 0.001) compared to MINOCA patients. Additionally, the risk of all-cause mortality was also significantly higher in MIOCA patients compared to MINOCA (RR: 1.33, 95%CI: 1.14-1.56, p-value: 0.001). Our findings also indicate that patients with MIOCA are at a significantly higher risk of recurrent myocardial infarction and cardiovascular-related mortality compared to patients with MINOCA. Overall, the insights gained from this meta-analysis have significant clinical implications, guiding decision-making in the management of patients with MINOCA.
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.