ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology1994
Clinical trials versus clinical practice in the secondary prevention of myocardial infarction.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Secondary prevention of myocardial infarction: impact of clinical trials on clinical practice.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 1995Trial
- Changes in rates of beta-blocker use in community hospital patients with acute myocardial infarction.Journal of general internal medicine · 2004Article
- Under-utilisation of beta-blockers after acute myocardial infarction. Pharmacoeconomic implications.PharmacoEconomics · 1999Review
- Is aspirin underused in myocardial infarction?PharmacoEconomics · 1997Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To examine whether the results of trials on the secondary prevention of myocardial infarction have led to a change of prescription practice, the discharge forms of a random sample of 737 patients admitted to a university hospital with a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (MI) with Q wave from 1982 to 1988 were examined. Information about cardiovascular and other risk factors, contraindications, and prescription of beta-adrenoceptor antagonists (beta AA), acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and calcium channel blockers (CCB) was collected. The prescription of these drugs was analysed in relation to clinical variables and the date of patients' discharge from hospital. During the 7 years of follow-up, the prescription of beta AA increased gradually from 20% to 30-35%; the prescription of CCB was above 30% during the same period and did not change significantly with time. The prescription of ASA increased from 0% to 30-35% in the last 3 years of follow-up. Contraindications to beta AA were present in 23.2% of cases and contraindications to ASA in 14.4%. In a multivariate analysis, hypertension (odds ratio 2.29, 95% confidence interval 1.55-3.38) and the period 1986-1988 (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.57-3.30) were associated with the prescription of beta AA, although the prescription of beta AA decreased significantly with advancing age. Other variables inversely associated with the prescription of beta AA were contraindications (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24-0.66) and the presence of heart failure during admission (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03-0.20).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
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.