ArticlePeerJ2023
Long-term outcomes and predictors of patients with ST elevated versus non-ST elevated myocardial infarctions in non-obstructive coronary arteries: a retrospective study in Northern China.
Article in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Role of Serum Biomarkers for the Differential Diagnosis and Prognostic Assessment of Myocardial Infarction with Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Prognostic utility of Killip classification in acute myocardial infarction: a retrospective cohort analysis in contemporary clinical practice.European heart journal open · 2026Article
- A narrative review of electrocardiogram manifestation of myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA).Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Review
- Prognostic factors of MINOCA and their possible mechanisms.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Review
- The Comparison of Predicting Factors and Outcomes of MINOCA and STEMI Patients in the 5-Year Follow-Up.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) is a heterogeneous disease entity with diverse etiologies and no uniform treatment protocols. Patients with MINOCA can be clinically classified into two groups based on whether they have an ST-segment elevation (STE) or non-ST segment elevation (NSTE), based on electrocardiogram (ECG) results, whose clinical prognosis is unclear. This study aimed to compare the outcomes and predictors of patients with STE and NSTE in the MINOCA population. Methods: We collected the data for 196 patients with MINOCA (115 with STE and 81 with NSTE) in China. Clinical characteristics, prognoses, and predictors of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were analyzed during the follow-up of all patients. Results: The proportion of patients with STE was greater than that with NSTE in the MINOCA population. Patients with NSTE were older and had a higher incidence of hypertension. No differences were observed in the outcomes between the STE and NSTE groups during a median follow-up period of 49 (37,46) months. No significant differences were observed in those with MACE (24.35% vs 22.22%, Conclusions: There were differences between the clinical characteristics of patients with STE and NSTE in the MINOCA population, even though outcomes during follow-up were similar. Independent risk factors for major adverse cardiac events were not identical in the STE and NSTE groups, which could be attributable to the differences in disease pathogenesis.
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.