ArticleSouth African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care2023
Cardiac scoring systems, coronary artery disease and major adverse cardiovascular events: A scoping review.
Article in South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combined detection of CXCR7 and CXCL12 for diagnosing acute myocardial infarction and predicting post-percutaneous coronary intervention major adverse cardiovascular events.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2026Article
- Predictive value of TRIB3 combined with BMPR2 for major adverse cardiovascular events in elderly coronary heart disease patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2026Article
- Development of a MACE risk prediction model based on CCTA-derived quantitative parameters: a proof-of-concept study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- TyG Index is Associated with Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in HIV-Infected Individuals with Cardiovascular Disease: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronary artery disease (CAD) as the leading cause of death globally for the last 20 years. Early screening and detection (primary prevention) and intervention (secondary prevention) are necessary to curb CAD and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) prevalence. A scoping review to assess the current literature on using cardiac scoring systems to predict CAD and MACE was performed.
methodsThe research question 'What is the literature on using cardiac scoring systems to predict CAD and MACE?' was addressed. The updated Arksey and O'Malley and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews methodologies were used. The search terms 'coronary artery disease' and 'cardiac scoring systems' and 'major adverse cardiovascular events' were used in the Boolean search on PubMed, ScienceDirect, MedLine and Cochrane Library.
resultsThe final list consisted of 19 published English results after the year 2000. There were six results without participants (four clinical guidelines, one review article and one ongoing clinical trial). Scoring systems were cardiovascular risk estimation systems focusing on the primary prevention of CAD; MACE was discussed but not scored. There were 13 robust results published from completed multinational clinical trials with participants. These results focused on a scoring system for the secondary prevention of CAD and MACE.
conclusionScoring systems remain an objective method for primary and secondary prevention of CAD and MACE.Contribution: Scoring systems may be helpful with clinical uncertainty or to standardise patient results for comparison in research.
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.