Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19320999›Full record

SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2009

Spinal cord stimulation in the treatment of refractory angina: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Rod S Taylor, Jessica De Vries, Eric Buchser, Mike J L Dejongste

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06176391 (Spinal Cord Stimulation for Vasospastic Angina Pectoris - a Prospective Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT06176391 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Vasospastic Angina Pectoris - a Prospective Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorAmsterdam UMC, location VUmcRan2024 to 2024Enrolled10ConditionsAngina Pectoris, AngiospasticArmsSpinal Cord Stimulation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 144 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Spinal cord stimulation for cancer-related pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Neuromodulation devices for heart failureEuropean heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. New Cancer Pain Treatment Options.Current pain and headache reports · 2017
    Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Rod S TaylorHealth Services Research, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter & Plymouth, Exeter, UK. rod.taylor@pms.ac.uk.
Jessica De Vries
Eric Buchser
Mike J L Dejongste
University Medical Center Groningen · NLHôpital de Morges · CHPeninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this paper was undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the management of refractory angina.

methodsWe searched a number of electronic databases including Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library up to February 2008 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting exercise capacity, ischemic burden, functional class, quality of life, usage of anti-anginal medication, costs and adverse events including mortality. Results were reported both descriptively for each study and using random effects meta-analysis. Given the variety in outcomes reported, some outcome results were pooled as standardised mean differences (SMD) and reported in standard deviation units.

resultsSeven RCTs were identified in a total of 270 refractory angina patients. The outcomes of SCS were found to be similar when directly compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous myocardial laser revascularisation (PMR). Compared to a 'no stimulation' control, there was some evidence of improvement in all outcomes following SCS implantation with significant gains observed in pooled exercise capacity (SMD: 0.76, 0.07 to 1.46, p = 0.03) and health-related quality of life (SMD: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.34, p = 0.001). Trials were small and were judged to range considerably in their quality. The healthcare costs of SCS appeared to be lower than CABG at 2-years follow up.

conclusionSCS appears to be an effective and safe treatment option in the management of refractory angina patients and of similar efficacy and safety to PMR, a potential alternative treatment. Further high quality RCT and cost effectiveness evidence is needed before SCS can be accepted as a routine treatment for refractory angina.

Indexed as

Coronary Artery BypassElectric Stimulation TherapyAngina PectorisCombined Modality TherapyComplementary TherapiesCoronary Artery DiseaseCost-Benefit AnalysisDatabases, BibliographicExercise ToleranceHumansMaleQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSpinal CordTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID19320999
PMCPMC2667170
OpenAlexW2156308811

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.