ArticleCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2004
Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Angina Pectoris.
Article in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been demonstrated to cause clinical improvement in patients with refractory angina pectoris in the number of anginal episodes, in nitroglycerin consumption, in maximal exercise time, in exercise time until angina, in the number of episodes of myocardial ischemia, in the duration of episodes of myocardial ischemia, and in ischemic ST-segment depression at a comparable workload. Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies have not been performed with SCS. The clinical improvement from SCS occurred despite no improvement in measured regional myocardial blood flow during exercise or in myocardial oxygen consumption as assessed by the heart rate times systolic pressure product at maximal exercise. The mechanisms of clinical improvement by SCS are unclear. SCS must be considered experimental at this time, and it remains a potential therapeutic option for the treatment of refractory angina pectoris in patients unable to have coronary revascularization or at very high risk for coronary revascularization.
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.