ArticleBiomedicines2024
Comparative Ten-Year Outcomes in Chronic and Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients Undergoing Invasive Diagnostics-Insights from the KORONEF Registry.
Article in Biomedicines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Profiles and Prognostic Value of a Non-Invasive Liver Fibrosis Marker in Patients With Acute and Chronic Coronary Syndrome: Insights From the CLIDAS-PCI.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- Procalcitonin in acute and chronic coronary syndromes: Diagnostic biomarker of coronary inflammation.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to characterize acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing invasive diagnostics and to evaluate prognostic factors for all-cause mortality over a 10-year follow-up period.
methodsThe KORONEF study was a prospective, observational, single-center study that enrolled 492 patients, of whom 467 had confirmed coronary artery disease (CAD). Baseline demographic, clinical, laboratory, and procedural data were analyzed, focusing on the differences between ACS and chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) patients.
resultsMales made up the majority of both the CCS and ACS groups (62.2% vs. 63.6%,
conclusionsThe long-term outcomes of the ACS patients highlight age and left ventricular function as significant prognostic factors, underscoring the importance of these parameters in risk stratification.
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.