ArticleJournal of the Royal College of Physicians of London
Unsatisfactory management of patients with myocardial infarction admitted to general medical wards.
Article in Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Acute coronary syndrome patients admitted to a cardiology vs non-cardiology service: variations in treatment & outcome.BMC health services research · 2017Observational
- Minimising delays to thrombolysis in patients developing acute myocardial infarction in hospital.Postgraduate medical journal · 1997Article
- Increasing prescription of drugs for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1995Article
- What should be the general practitioner's role in early management of acute myocardial infarction?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1995Review
- Management of myocardial infarction.Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of LondonArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction to general medical wards fared less well than those admitted over the same period to the coronary care unit. The median age of the 119 patients admitted to the general wards was 75 years, compared to 64 years for those on the coronary care unit. Although 13 of the 119 fulfilled the local guidelines for thrombolysis, none received it, only 64% were given aspirin and 49% nitrates. The death rate for these patients was 29% compared to 12% of those given thrombolysis on the coronary care unit and 26% of those who were ineligible for thrombolysis but had been admitted to the coronary care unit. Of the survivors on the general wards, 80% were given aspirin as secondary prevention, and 37% were given a beta-adrenergic blocker. None was referred to the hospital cardiac rehabilitation programme.
Indexed as
Identifiers
8169883PMC5400961W2464209805What 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.