Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38859725›Full record

ReviewClinical cardiology2024

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD): A contemporary review.

Sophie Offen, Cathevine Yang, Jacqueline Saw

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. 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

3 authors.

Sophie OffenDivision of Cardiology, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8093-1646
Cathevine YangDivision of Cardiology, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jacqueline SawDivision of Cardiology, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is an increasingly recognized cause of myocardial infarction that most frequently affects younger women, making it an important cause of morbidity and mortality within these demographics. The evolution of intracoronary imaging, improved diagnosis with coronary angiography, and ongoing research efforts and attention via social media, has led to increasing recognition of this previously underdiagnosed condition. In this review, we provide a summary of the current body of knowledge, as well as focused updates on the pathogenesis of SCAD, insights on genetic susceptibility, contemporary diagnostic tools, and immediate, short- and long-term management.

Indexed as

Coronary AngiographyCoronary Vessel AnomaliesVascular DiseasesCoronary VesselsGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansRisk FactorsFMD—fibromuscular dysplasiaIVUS—intravascular ultrasoundNSTEMI—non‐ST elevation myocardial infarctionOCT—optical coherence tomographySCAD—spontaneous coronary artery dissectionSTEMI—ST‐elevation myocardial infarction

Identifiers

PMID38859725
PMCPMC11165169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.