ArticleCoronary artery disease2014
Predicting coronary no-reflow in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction using Bayesian approaches.
Article in Coronary artery disease, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The No-reflow Phenomenon: Is it Predictable by Demographic factors and Routine Laboratory Data?Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe no-reflow phenomenon is associated with a worse prognosis at follow-up for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with a primary percutaneous coronary intervention. To date, there is no effective method to predict no-reflow. The aim of this study was to establish a predictive system to evaluate the risk of no-reflow by integrating multiple types of information using Bayesian methods. PATIENTS AND
methodsSTEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention within 12 h from the symptom onset between January 2008 and May 2013 were initially screened from the registry database of Anzhen Hospital (Beijing, China). Baseline clinical data, laboratory studies, and procedural characteristics were recorded. The Bayesian Model and Ten-Factor Model were used and compared with the Single-Factor Models. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to show the efficacy by presenting both sensitivity and specificity for different cutoff points.
resultsA total of 1059 consecutive STEMI patients were enrolled. Seventy-nine factors were collected to assess the confidence of the no-reflow phenomenon. The combined likelihood ratios were used to measure the reliability of the no-reflow phenomenon. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.85 and 0.79 for the Bayesian Model and Ten-Factors Model, respectively, whereas the Single-Factor Model yielded a maximum AUC of 0.67.
conclusionThe Bayesian Model showed high sensitivity and good specificity in predicting true relations between multiple factors and the no-reflow outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.