ArticleThe Canadian journal of cardiology2007
Opinions on chelation therapy in patients undergoing coronary angiography: cross-sectional survey.
Article in The Canadian journal of cardiology, 2007. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChelation therapy is frequently used by patients for the treatment of coronary artery disease. However, relatively little is known about patient attitudes and beliefs that underlie the use of this treatment. The aim of the present study was to document patients' opinions and beliefs about health care decision making, physician and patient communication and relationships, and reasons for using or not using chelation therapy as treatment for coronary artery disease.
methodsA mail survey was sent to patients who underwent coronary angiography between 1998 and 2000 in Alberta. Information was collected on self-reported reasons for chelation therapy use, sociodemographic characteristics, communication and relationships between patients and physicians, as well as beliefs regarding surgery, medications and chelation therapy.
resultsOf the 780 patients who received surveys, 96 users and 264 nonusers of chelation therapy completed questionnaires. Among the users, 20.8% believed that chelation therapy could cure heart disease, 44.2% believed that it could relieve symptoms, 16.7% believed that it could have side effects and 58.4% believed that it could increase quality of life. Users and nonusers were similar in their beliefs about safety and benefits of heart surgery, but users of chelation therapy were less likely than nonusers to believe that using conventional medications could prevent worsening of heart disease (53.1% versus 67.4%), increase quality of life (74.0% versus 85.2%) and give a feeling of control over heart disease (61.5% versus 77.7%).
conclusionsMany chelation therapy users appeared to have negative views toward the benefits of conventional medications and positive views toward the safety of chelation therapy. Users and nonusers of chelation therapy had the same views toward the benefits and safety of heart surgery.
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.