The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
It’s Time for a Change to a Troponin Standard
Open accessAbstract
ecently, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) convened a conference to discuss refinements in the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction.The panel on biochemistry considered issues related to the use of marker proteins.We were guided predominantly by the science of the area.We were also cognizant of the impact that changes in the standards would have on epidemiology, clinical trials, education of physicians, and patient care.Our recommendations will be incorporated, with the recommendations of the other panels, into a position paper for the ESC and the ACC.However, the members of the biochemistry group decided to express the opinions we felt were important in this area independently.Our thinking does not represent the position of the ESC, the ACC, or of the conjoint task force.Many modifications of the original World Health Organization criteria for acute myocardial infarction 1 have been accepted and incorporated into the ESC/ACC criteria; some deletions have also occurred.Until recently, most markers were detected using enzymatic activity; detection of the protein concentration now is preferred.Thus, it is more appropriate to refer to molecules released into the circulation as a consequence of cardiac injury as biochemical diagnostic markers or biomarkers.In this editorial, we emphasize issues related to the biochemical diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction.New and improved plasma biomarkers (troponins) with better sensitivity and specificity will be emphasized in preference to markers such as total creatine kinase (CK), CK-MB, lactate dehydrogenase, and aspartate aminotransferase.Rapid assays for the early detection of infarction that may be helpful will be delineated, and the use of the troponin markers to aid in the risk stratification of patients with acute coronary syndromes will be recommended.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Katrukha, A. G., Bereznikova, A. V., Esakova, T. V., Pettersson, K., Lövgren, T., Severina, M. E., Pulkki, K., Vuopio-Pulkki, L.-M., & Gusev, N. B. (1997) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1093/clinchem/43.8.1379 · Cited by 266
Cited by
Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods
Rutjes, A., Reitsma, J., Coomarasamy, A., Khan, K., & Bossuyt, P. (2007) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta11500 · Cited by 524
Reitsma, J. B., Rutjes, A. W. S., Khan, K. S., Coomarasamy, A., & Bossuyt, P. M. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.02.005 · Cited by 405
Konishi, H., Miyauchi, K., Shitara, J., Endo, H., Wada, H., Doi, S., Naito, R., Tsuboi, S., Ogita, M., Dohi, T., et al. (2016) · The American Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.08.067 · Cited by 53
Meng, Q. H., Zhu, S., Sohn, N., Mycyk, T., Shaw, S. A., Dalshaug, G., & Krahn, J. (2008) · Journal of Cardiac Surgery · doi:10.1111/j.1540-8191.2008.00701.x · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Jaffe, A. S., Ravkilde, J., Roberts, R., Naslund, U., Apple, F. S., Galvani, M., & Katus, H.
- Venue
- Circulation
- Published
- 2000-09-12
- Volume
- 102
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1216-1220
- ISSN
- 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4539
- OpenAlex
- W2144744611
- Cited by
- 643
- References
- 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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.