ArticleCardiology research2021
The Difference in Accuracy Between Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events Score and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction Score in Predicting In-Hospital Mortality of Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients.
Article in Cardiology research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic models in Southeast Asian populations with acute myocardial infarction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Microvascular dysfunction assessed by dynamic spect has a prognostic value in patients with a first acute myocardial infarction in a 3-year follow-up study.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Cystatin C as a Biomarker for Identifying High-Risk Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: An Observational Study.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisObservational
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn-hospital mortality of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients varies between 1% and 19% in Asia. Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score are the most frequently used risk scores for predicting in-hospital mortality. These two scores have different accuracy depending on the risk profiles of each region. This study aimed to identify the difference in accuracy between GRACE and TIMI scores.
methodsThis was an observational cohort retrospective study on consecutive patients with STEMI admitted to Dr. Hasan Sadikin General Hospital Bandung between July 2018 and June 2019.
resultsThe risk scores were evaluated in 255 patients with STEMI, whose data were collected from medical records. Patients in this study were 58 ± 11 years old, more often male (78.8%) and have smoking (65.5%), dyslipidemia (61%), hypertension (56.5%) and diabetes mellitus (21.6 %) as their risk factors. Forty-five patients died in hospitalization (17%). The TIMI and GRACE scores revealed a significant graded increase in mortality with a rising score. There was a statistically significant difference in accuracy between the scores of 0.082 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.040 - 0.125; P < 0.001) with the GRACE score (C statistics of 0.91; P < 0.001) having better accuracy compared to TIMI score (C statistics of 0.83; P < 0.001). This might be due to the fact that the GRACE scoring system has more detail and complete variables than the TIMI score.
conclusionThere is a significant difference between the accuracy of GRACE and TIMI scores in predicting in-hospital mortality in STEMI patients. The accuracy of the GRACE score is better than the TIMI score for predicting in-hospital mortality in STEMI patients.
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.