Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11346125›Full record

ReviewDrugs & aging2001

Contemporary management of chronic stable angina.

A D Staniforth

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs & aging, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Absence of respiratory effects with ivabradine in patients with asthma.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2008
    Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

A D StaniforthDepartment of Cardiology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, West Smithfield, London, England. adstaniforth@beeb.net
St Bartholomew's Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronic stable angina is a common condition with a prognosis that is less benign than is generally appreciated. The optimal treatment strategy of this disorder is unclear, and few anti-ischaemic agents have been rigorously tested in prospectively randomised mortality studies. The evidence base for the anti-ischaemic therapy of chronic angina draws upon data 'borrowed' from studies in acute coronary syndromes, and from studies in chronic angina using surrogate endpoints such as ambulatory silent ischaemia. Such evidence leads us to believe that anti-ischaemic therapy with beta-blockers offers a mortality benefit in chronic angina. In contrast, the mortality benefit of lipid lowering therapy and antiplatelet agents is well proven. Angioplasty offers no mortality benefit in the treatment of chronic angina, although it is more effective than medical therapy alone for the relief of symptoms. In a few patients with high order proximal coronary disease, coronary bypass surgery offers a distinct mortality advantage compared with medical treatment alone. Most patients, however, do not warrant such an approach, and only require surgery for when they remain symptomatic despite adequate medical therapy. Alternative strategies such as cardiac transplantation, transmyocardial laser revascularisation and spinal cord stimulation are now accepted in a subgroup of patients for the treatment of chronic angina refractory to standard therapy.

Indexed as

Angina PectorisChronic DiseaseHumansMyocardial RevascularizationThrombosis

Identifiers

PMID11346125
OpenAlexW1963666403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.