Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9883399›Full record

ReviewDrugs & aging1998

Utilisation of thrombolytic therapy in older patients with myocardial infarction.

K L Woods, D Ketley

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs & aging, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

K L WoodsDepartment of Medicine and Therapeutics, University of Leicester, England. klw@le.ac.uk
D Ketley
University of Leicester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Empirical evidence from many countries, obtained from sampling populations of patients admitted to hospital with acute myocardial infarction, has confirmed that elderly patients are significantly less likely to receive thrombolytic therapy. This difference persists after controlling for confounding factors such as admission delay and contraindications to thrombolysis. However, evidence supporting the efficacy of thrombolysis in reducing mortality after acute myocardial infarction is less clear cut in patients aged 75 years or above than in younger patients. These older patients are substantially under-represented in the clinical trials although they constitute one third of the clinical population. Observational studies indicate that older patients are at slightly higher risk than younger patients of experiencing haemorrhagic stroke after thrombolysis. It is, however, unlikely that efficacy and tolerability considerations alone account for the low use of thrombolytics in the elderly as similar trends are seen for other modalities of treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Since older patients have the highest mortality risk after myocardial infarction, they have the greatest potential gain from thrombolytic treatment, assuming a uniform treatment effect across age. The estimated cost effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained) improves with increasing age. It is concluded that patient age should not influence the treatment decision concerning thrombolysis. To ensure that elderly patients receive maximum benefit from this therapeutic advance requires attention to referral patterns from the community, speed of assessment in hospital and a clear treatment policy without age constraints. The effectiveness of these measures should be routinely audited.

Indexed as

AgedAge FactorsCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug UtilizationFibrinolytic AgentsHumansMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionPatient SelectionFibrinolytic Agents

Identifiers

PMID9883399
OpenAlexW2079364020

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.