ArticleCJC open2025
Equity Gaps in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Occlusion Myocardial Infarction.
Article in CJC open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pitfalls of Posterior Leads for Posterior Occlusion MI.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with occlusion myocardial infarction (OMI) who meet the ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) criteria experience inequitable delays in care, because of sociodemographic factors, such as age and sex. OMI patients who do not meet STEMI criteria and are admitted to the hospital as non-STEMI patients, experience further delays. However, whether equity gaps exist in OMI care remains unknown. Methods: A retrospective chart review included patients with acute coronary syndrome admitted to the hospital through 2 academic emergency departments, in the period from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022. Patients were categorized as having one of the following: OMI (acute culprit with Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction [TIMI] 0-2 flow, or acute culprit with TIMI 3 flow, and a troponin I level > 10,000 ng/L; or if they had no angiogram, a troponin I level > 10,000 ng/L plus new regional wall-motion abnormality on echocardiogram); non-OMI (MI that did not meet the OMI threshold); or MI ruled out. Results: Among 662 charts, 260 were OMI patients, 296 were non-OMI patients, and 106 were patients with MI ruled out. Of the 260 OMI patients, 116 were admitted to the hospital as STEMI patients (true-positive), and 144 (55.4%) were admitted as non-STEMI patients (false-negative). In bivariate analyses, true-positive STEMI patients with atypical symptoms had a longer door-to-electrocardiogram (ECG) time ( Conclusions: True-positive STEMI patients had delayed ECGs and catheterization for those presenting with atypical symptoms. More than half of those with OMI were admitted as non-STEMI patients, with further reperfusion delays for older patients and those presenting with atypical symptoms. Shifting to the OMI paradigm highlights reperfusion delays and equity gaps in the management of ACS.
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.