Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 464

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Association Between Adoption of Evidence-Based Treatment and Survival for Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Jernberg, Tomas·2011·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Only limited information is available on the speed of implementation of new evidence-based and guideline-recommended treatments and its association with survival in real life health care of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). OBJECTIVE: To describe the adoption of new treatments and the related chances of short- and long-term survival in consecutive patients with STEMI in a single country over a 12-year period. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Register of Information and Knowledge about Swedish Heart Intensive Care Admission (RIKS-HIA) records baseline characteristics, treatments, and outcome of consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome admitted to almost all hospitals in Sweden. This study includes 61,238 patients with a first-time diagnosis of STEMI between 1996 and 2007. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Estimated and crude proportions of patients treated with different medications and invasive procedures and mortality over time. RESULTS: Of evidence-based treatments, reperfusion increased from 66% (95%, confidence interval [CI], 52%-79%) to 79% (95% CI, 69%-89%; P < .001), primary percutaneous coronary intervention from 12% (95% CI, 11%-14%) to 61% (95% CI, 45%-77%; P < .001), and revascularization from 10% (96% CI, 6%-14%) to 84% (95% CI, 73%-95%; P < .001). The use of aspirin, clopidogrel, β-blockers, statins, and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors all increased: clopidogrel from 0% to 82% (95% CI, 69%-95%; P < .001), statins from 23% (95% CI, 12%-33%) to 83% (95% CI, 75%-91%; P < .001), and ACE inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blockers from 39% (95% CI, 26%-52%) to 69% (95% CI, 58%-70%; P < .001). The estimated in-hospital, 30-day and 1-year mortality decreased from 12.5% (95% CI, 4.3%-20.6%) to 7.2% (95% CI, 1.7%-12.6%; P < .001); from 15.0% (95% CI, 6.2%-23.7%) to 8.6% (95% CI, 2.7%-14.5%; P < .001); and from 21.0% (95% CI, 11.0%-30.9%) to 13.3% (95% CI, 6.0%-20.4%; P < .001), respectively. After adjustment, there was still a consistent trend with lower standardized mortality over the years. The 12-year survival analyses showed that the decrease of mortality was sustained over time. CONCLUSION: In a Swedish registry of patients with STEMI, between 1996 and 2007, there was an increase in the prevalence of evidence-based treatments. During this same time, there was a decrease in 30-day and 1-year mortality that was sustained during long-term follow-up.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2011.522

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 464

Metadata

Authors
Jernberg, T.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2011-04-27
Volume
305
Issue
16
Pages
1677
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2084826452
Cited by
464
References
4
FWCI
30.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Association Between Adoption of Evidence-Based Treatment and Survival for Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2011.522
The paper
Jernberg, T. (2011). Association Between Adoption of Evidence-Based Treatment and Survival for Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.522

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.