Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 320

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

Chambless, Lloyd, Keil, Ulrich, Dobson, Annette, Mähönen, Markku, Kuulasmaa, Kari, Rajakangas, Anna-Maija, Löwel, Hannelore, Tunstall-Pedoe, Hugh·1997·Circulation

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.cir.96.11.3849

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.

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

Cited by

See all 320

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.