ReviewCureus2025
Association of Anticardiolipin Antibody in Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myocardial infarction (MI) is a serious form of cardiovascular disease (CVD) that can be fatal. On the other hand, antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) and their subtypes are found in thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, or other CVDs. Anticardiolipin antibody (ACA), a subtype of aPL, is found in MI and other CVDs; however, the level of ACA in MI compared to the control group was not previously determined in a meta-analysis. In this research, we examined the odds ratio (OR) of ACA in MI patients compared to a healthy control group. After reviewing 180 articles, we selected eight studies and evaluated the OR using a forest plot. We also analyzed the asymmetry and possible outliers, heterogeneity, sensitivity, and quality. Our findings revealed an OR of 4.36 (95%CI: 1.64-11.61; P=0.003), indicating that ACA is found at a higher level in MI patients as compared to healthy controls. The studies were of high quality and exhibited moderate heterogeneity. The OR of 2.26 (95%CI: 1.74-2.94; P<0.00001) from the fixed effect model further supported the main outcome's high sensitivity. ACA can be a useful and feasible biomarker to diagnose and predict the chances of MI. Further research is required to determine an accurate cut-off value of ACA through which the possibility of MI can be predicted in patients with thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, or other related CVDs.
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.