The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Population Versus Clinical View of Case Fatality From Acute Coronary Heart Disease: Results From the WHO MONICA Project 1985–1990
Abstract
Background The clinical view of case fatality (CF) from acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in those reaching the hospital alive is different from the population view. Registration of both hospitalized AMI cases and out-of-hospital coronary heart disease (CHD) deaths in the WHO MONICA Project allows both views to be reconciled. The WHO MONICA Project provides the largest data set worldwide to explore the relationship between CHD CF and age, sex, coronary event rate, and first versus recurrent event. Methods and Results All 79 669 events of definite AMI or possible coronary death, occurring from 1985 to 90 among 5 725 762 people, 35 to 64 years of age, in 29 MONICA populations are the basis for CF calculations. Age-adjusted CF (percentage of CHD events that were fatal) was calculated across populations, stratified for different time periods, and related to age, sex, and CHD event rate. Median 28-day population CF was 49% (range, 35% to 60%) in men and 51% (range, 34% to 70%) in women and was particularly higher in women than men in populations in which CHD event rates were low. Median 28-day CF for hospitalized events was much lower: in men 22% (range, 15% to 36%) and in women 27% (range, 19% to 46%). Among hospitalized events CF was twice as high for recurrent as for first events. Conclusions Overall 28-day CF is halved for hospitalized events compared with all events and again nearly halved for hospitalized 24-hour survivors. Because approximately two thirds of 28-day CHD deaths in men and women occurred before reaching the hospital, opportunities for reducing CF through improved care in the acute event are limited. Major emphasis should be on primary and secondary prevention.
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
Cited by
Tunstall-Pedoe, H., Kuulasmaa, K., Mähönen, M., Tolonen, H., & Ruokokoski, E. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04021-0 · Cited by 1,444
Self-citationSex-Based Differences in Early Mortality after Myocardial Infarction
Vaccarino, V., Parsons, L., Every, N. R., Barron, H. V., & Krumholz, H. M. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199907223410401 · Cited by 1,298
Schmermund, A., Möhlenkamp, S., Stang, A., Grönemeyer, D., Seibel, R., Hirche, H., Mann, K., Siffert, W., Lauterbach, K., Siegrist, J., et al. (2002) · American Heart Journal · doi:10.1067/mhj.2002.123579 · Cited by 577
Oxidative stress and neutrophil activation—the two keystones of ischemia/reperfusion injury
Kaminski, K. A., Bonda, T. A., Korecki, J., & Musial, W. J. (2002) · International Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/s0167-5273(02)00189-4 · Cited by 340
Risk Factors for Myocardial Infarction Case Fatality and Stroke Case Fatality in Type 2 Diabetes
Stevens, R. J., Coleman, R. L., Adler, A. I., Stratton, I. M., Matthews, D. R., & Holman, R. R. (2004) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.27.1.201 · Cited by 295
Metadata
- Authors
- Chambless, L., Keil, U., Dobson, A., Mähönen, M., Kuulasmaa, K., Rajakangas, A.-M., Löwel, H., & Tunstall-Pedoe, H.
- Venue
- Circulation
- Published
- 1997-12-02
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 3849-3859
- ISSN
- 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4539
- OpenAlex
- W2017612306
- Cited by
- 320
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.69
- 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: Population Versus Clinical View of Case Fatality From Acute Coronary Heart Disease: Results From the WHO MONICA Project 1985–1990. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.96.11.3849
- The paper
- Chambless, L., Keil, U., Dobson, A., Mähönen, M., Kuulasmaa, K., Rajakangas, A.-M., Löwel, H., & Tunstall-Pedoe, H. (1997). Population Versus Clinical View of Case Fatality From Acute Coronary Heart Disease: Results From the WHO MONICA Project 1985–1990. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.96.11.3849
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.