Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9307741›Full record

ArticlePostgraduate medical journal1997

Minimising delays to thrombolysis in patients developing acute myocardial infarction in hospital.

A D Mumford, A P Banning

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Postgraduate medical journal, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Delays to thrombolysis.Postgraduate medical journal · 1998
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A D MumfordDepartment of Cardiology, University, Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK.
A P Banning
University Hospital of Wales · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We investigated the clinical features and management of 50 patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction from the community and 50 patients presenting with cardiac symptoms who developed an infarct after being admitted to a general medical ward for observation. Nineteen of the 50 patients initially admitted to non-specialist wards were found retrospectively to have sustained an infarct prior to hospital admission. Of the remaining 31 admission in this group, 24 developed symptoms within 24 hours of admission, 26 presented with chest pain, while 21 had evidence of acute coronary ischaemia on the admission electrocardiograph. Of the 26 patients who presented with chest pain, 20 were treated with aspirin, 13 with intravenous nitrate and four with heparin. Median delay from onset of symptoms to thrombolysis with in-hospital patients was 120 minutes and for community patients 287 minutes. Interestingly, the greatest component of this delay in both groups was the time taken for patients to decide to seek assistance after developing acute symptoms. Patients at high risk of developing acute myocardial infarction within 24 hours of hospital admission may be identified by a history of chest pain and electrocardiographic evidence of acute coronary ischaemia at admission. Such patients may experience suboptimal treatment and delays to thrombolysis if admitted to nonspecialist wards, but this may be reduced by admitting all 'high risk' patients directly to a high dependency cardiac ward for the first 24 hours after presentation.

Indexed as

HospitalizationThrombolytic TherapyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overElectrocardiographyFemaleHospital UnitsHumansMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID9307741
PMCPMC2431375
OpenAlexW2168747641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.