Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 423

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evidence Favoring the Use of Anticoagulants in the Hospital Phase of Acute Myocardial Infarction

Chalmers, Thomas C., Matta, Raymond J., Smith, Harry, Kunzler, Anne-Marie·1977·New England Journal of Medicine
DOI 10.1056/nejm197711172972004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Since the last comprehensive review of anticoagulation in acute myocardial infarction four additional randomized control trials have been reported. The overwhelming majority of all trials favored anticoagulation. Rates of thromboembolism were higher in the control, and hemorrhagic complications in the anticoagulated group. Pooling of all randomized control trials gives mean case fatality rates of 19.6% for the control and 15.4% for the anticoagulated group, a relative reduction of 21% (P less than 0.05 or less than 0.001, depending on the analytic method). Five of six randomized control trials reported "no effect" because the difference favoring anticoagulation was not statistically significant. However, sample sizes in these "negative" papers were too small to protect against missing a 21% reduction in true case fatality rate due to anticoagulation (beta greater than 0.10). All patients who present no specific contraindication should receive anticoagulants during hospitalization for infarction.

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 · 10.1056/nejm197711172972004

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Chalmers, T. C., Matta, R. J., Smith, H., & Kunzler, A.-M.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Publisher
Massachusetts Medical Society
Published
1977-11-17
Volume
297
Issue
20
Pages
1091-1096
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
DOI
10.1056/nejm197711172972004
OpenAlex
W2059356295
Cited by
423
References
1
FWCI
10.78
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

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.