ArticleCirculation reports2025
Impact of Risk Stratification on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome - A Systematic Review.
Article in Circulation reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Risk scores have been developed to determine the treatment strategies and predict the prognosis of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). It remains unclear whether risk score-guided management improves prognosis. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to evaluate whether the use of risk scores to assess the acute severity of illness affects the prognosis of adult patients with ACS. Methods and Results: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether risk score-guided management improves clinical outcomes in patients with ACS. We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science up to November 30, 2024, and included randomized controlled trials comparing risk score-based care with standard care. Two cluster randomized trials, using the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events risk score (GRS), were identified, with a total of 5,368 patients. A systematic review adjusted for clustering revealed no significant differences in clinical outcomes, including in-hospital and 1-year mortality, in-hospital cardiac arrest, in-hospital recurrent ischemia, in-hospital and 1-year heart failure, and early invasive angiography. Conclusions: Risk score-guided management of patients with ACS using risk scores, particularly the GRS, did not consistently lead to improved clinical outcomes. Further research is needed to assess whether risk score-guided management can improve patient outcomes.
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.