Objective Risk Assessment vs Standard Care for Acute Coronary Syndromes | Zendy

Derek P. Chew | Zendy; Karice Hyun | Zendy; Erin Morton | Zendy; Matthew Horsfall | Zendy; Graham S. Hillis | Zendy; Clara K Chow | Zendy; Stephen Quinn | Zendy; Mario D’Souza | Zendy; Andrew T. Yan | Zendy; Chris P Gale | Zendy; Shaun G. Goodman | Zendy; Keith A.A. Fox | Zendy; David Brieger | Zendy

AI Assistant Blog Pricing

Home ZAIA Blog

Open Access

Objective Risk Assessment vs Standard Care for Acute Coronary Syndromes

Author(s) -

Derek P. Chew,

Karice Hyun,

Erin Morton,

Matthew Horsfall,

Graham S. Hillis,

Clara K Chow,

Stephen Quinn,

Mario D’Souza,

Andrew T. Yan,

Chris P Gale,

Shaun G. Goodman,

Keith A.A. Fox,

David Brieger

Publication year - 2020

Publication title -

jama cardiology

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

SCImago Journal Rank - 6.108

H-Index - 63

eISSN - 2380-6591

pISSN - 2380-6583

DOI - 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.6314

Subject(s) - medicine , interquartile range , guideline , acute coronary syndrome , myocardial infarction , odds ratio , emergency medicine , percutaneous coronary intervention , randomized controlled trial , pathology

Although international guidelines recommend use of the Global Registries of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score (GRS) to guide acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treatment decisions, the prospective utility of the GRS in improving care and outcomes is unproven.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research