ArticleThe American journal of cardiology2001
Lessons from the post coronary artery bypass graft study in evaluating and controlling technical variability in angiographic trials. Post CABG Investigators.
Article in The American journal of cardiology, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It reports registered trial NCT00000463. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Post Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) Study
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although many investigators have evaluated the technical variability of quantitative angiographic techniques used to study atherosclerosis regression in native coronary arteries, few have studied the variability inherent in repeated studies of atherosclerotic saphenous vein grafts. This study describes 2 studies performed during the course of the Post Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) Clinical Trial that were designed to assess the reproducibility of: (1) repeated angiographic views within a short time period; and (2) reproducibility of the total process of quantitative analysis of saphenous vein graft angiograms. Statistical methods are described that provide a more meaningful assessment of the impact of measurement variability in the analytic process versus the variability related to changes induced by pharmacologic interventions. One such method, the increase in standard deviation (SD) among patients (ISDP), showed that repeated angiographic views increased the variability of calculation of lesion minimal diameter by 1.5%, whereas the ISDP for repetition of the entire process of quantitative angiographic readings increased variability 6.4%. These data from the Post CABG trial reveal that technical variability is small and has negligible impact on the conclusions of the study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.