Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38056913›Full record

SynthesisOpen heart2023

Regional and temporal variations of spontaneous coronary artery dissection care according to consensus recommendations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Quan Dang, Farrah Othman, Brodie Sheahen, Simone Marschner, Peter Psaltis, Rasha Kadem Al-Lamee, Richard Szirt, James Chong, Sarah Zaman

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Open heart, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Spontaneous coronary artery dissection: dissecting an underdiagnosed problem.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Quan DangWestmead Applied Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0309-1289
Farrah OthmanThe University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Brodie SheahenWestmead Applied Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
Simone MarschnerWestmead Applied Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5484-9144
Peter PsaltisVascular Research Centre, Lifelong Health Theme, South Australian Medical and Health Research Institute, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Rasha Kadem Al-LameeNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3752-5532
Richard SzirtSt George Hospital, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia.
James ChongDepartment of Cardiology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
Sarah ZamanWestmead Applied Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia sarah.zaman@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-6289-583X
The University of Sydney · AUImperial College London · GBSt George Hospital · AUThe University of Western Australia · AUWestmead Hospital · AUWomen's and Children's Health Network · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe first expert consensus documents on management of patients with spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) were published in 2018. Worldwide quality of care, as measured by adherence to these recommendations, has not been systematically reviewed. We aim to review the proportion of patients with SCAD receiving consensus recommendations globally, regionally and, determine differences in practice before and after 2018. METHODS AND

resultsA systematic review was performed by searching four main databases (Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, CINAHL) from their inception to 16 June 2022. Studies were selected if they included patients with SCAD and reported at least one of the consensus document recommendations. 53 studies, n=8456 patients (mean 50.1 years, 90.6% female) were included. On random effects meta-analysis, 92.1% (95% CI 89.3 to 94.8) received at least one antiplatelet, 78.0% (CI 73.5 to 82.4) received beta-blockers, 58.7% (CI 52.3 to 65.1) received ACE inhibitors or aldosterone receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs), 54.4% (CI 45.4 to 63.5) were screened for fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD), and 70.2% (CI 60.8 to 79.5) were referred to cardiac rehabilitation. Except for cardiac rehabilitation referral and use of ACEIs/ARBs, there was significant heterogeneity in all other quality-of-care parameters, across geographical regions. No significant difference was observed in adherence to recommendations in studies published before and after 2018, except for lower cardiac rehabilitation referrals after 2018 (test of heterogeneity, p=0.012).

conclusionThere are significant variations globally in the management of patients with SCAD, particularly in FMD screening. Raising awareness about consensus recommendations and further prospective evidence about their effect on outcomes may help improve the quality of care for these patients.

Indexed as

Angiotensin Receptor AntagonistsCoronary VesselsAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsConsensusConsensus Statements as TopicCoronary Vessel AnomaliesFemaleHumansMaleVascular DiseasesAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsAcute Coronary SyndromeCardiac RehabilitationCoronary Artery Disease

Identifiers

PMID38056913
PMCPMC10711887
OpenAlexW4389373001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.