Routine invasive strategies vs selective invasive strategies (conservative): Myocardial infarction
Routine invasive strategies showed no clear difference in myocardial infarction compared with selective invasive strategies (conservative) (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Routine invasive strategies vs selective invasive strategies (conservative) Myocardial infarction · participants with UA/NSTEMI in the stent era Routine invasive strategies showed no clear difference in myocardial infarction compared with selective invasive strategies (conservative) (moderate certainty). Routine invasive strategies versus selective invasive strategies for unstable angina and non‐ST elevation… (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.79 [0.63, 1] | 8 studies · 8915 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Routine invasive strategies versus selective invasive strategies for unstable angina and non‐ST elevation myocardial infarction in the… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.