Letter by Ciliberti and Capucci Regarding Article, "Medical Therapy for Secondary Prevention and Long-Term Outcome in Patients With Myocardial Infarction With Nonobstructive Coronary Artery Disease".

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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

1. ANOCA, INOCA, MINOCA: The New Frontier of Coronary Syndromes.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025
   Review
2. Prognostic impact of secondary prevention medical therapy following myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries: a Bayesian and frequentist meta-analysis.European heart journal open · 2022
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Response by Lindahl et al to Letter Regarding Article, "Medical Therapy for Secondary Prevention and Long-Term Outcome in Patients With Myocardial Infarction With Nonobstructive Coronary Artery Disease".2017
• Comment on
  Medical Therapy for Secondary Prevention and Long-Term Outcome in Patients With Myocardial Infarction With Nonobstructive Coronary Artery Disease.2017

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as