ArticleHerz2014
Time to treatment-door-to-balloon time is not everything.
Article in Herz, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-Catheter Versus Conventional Two-Catheter Primary PCI in STEMI: A 1:1 Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.Cardiovascular therapeutics · 2026Article
- ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Door to Balloon Time Improvement Project.Cardiology research · 2016Article
- Quality of care in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-segment -elevation myocardial infarction: Gulf RACE 2 experience.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
International guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) recommend various performance measures to monitor the quality of STEMI systems of care. Door-to-balloon (D2B) time (arrival at hospital to percutaneous coronary intervention, PCI) and overall health care system delay (first medical contact to reperfusion) are acknowledged as valuable performance measures when treating patients with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). However, there is confusion regarding the exact definition of these performance measures, and moreover system delay and PCI-related delay (the extra delay acceptable to perform PPCI instead of fibrinolysis) are often used synonymously, which add confusion when considering reperfusion strategy. The present paper calls for a consensus regarding the use and definition of objective performance measures when treating patients with STEMI, and exemplifies why it is insufficient just to focus on D2B time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24980984What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.