SynthesisPloS one2025
Pharmacoinvasive strategy versus fibrinolytic therapy alone in adults with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the pharmacoinvasive strategy (PS) versus fibrinolysis alone in adults with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.
methodsWe searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception until January 17th, 2025. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022309130). We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), assessed risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1.0 tool, and calculated pooled relative risks and mean differences. We used GRADE's minimally contextualized approach to determine the certainty of the evidence.
resultsWe found 7 RCTs (n = 3053). The PS, compared to fibrinolysis alone, may have an important reduction on mortality (3.3% vs 3.9%; -5 per 1000; 95% CI: -16 to +10); and has an important reduction on reinfarction (2.6% vs 4.4%; -19 per 1000; 95% CI: -27 to -6), revascularization (9.0% vs 26.8%; -169 per 1000; 95% CI: -220 to -64), and recurrent ischemia (1.2% vs 5.7%; -46 per 1000; 95% CI: -52 to -27) at 30 days follow up. Similar results were found at longest follow up for the outcomes mentioned. PS probably has an important reduction on mean hospital stay length at longest follow up (-2.47 days; 95% CI: -4.17 to -0.78) and may reduce cardiac failure and cardiogenic shock at 30 days, but the evidence is very uncertain. PS has trivial or no effect on major bleeding (4.6% vs 5.0%; -4 per 1000; 95% CI: -17 to +13) and may have an important reduction on stroke (0.7% vs 1.3%; -6 per 1000: 95 CI: -10 to +2).
conclusionsThe PS has an important reduction on reinfarction, revascularization, and recurrent ischemia; probably has an important reduction on mean hospital stay length; and may have an important reduction of mortality and stroke. Also, PS may reduce cardiac failure and cardiogenic shock, but the evidence is very uncertain. The risk of major bleeding did not increase.
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.