Does ischemia burden in stable coronary artery disease effectively identify revascularization candidates? Ischemia burden in stable coronary artery disease does not effectively identify revascularization candidates.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Nuclear Cardiology in 2020 - Perspectives of the New SBC Guideline.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2020
   Article
2. Measurement of MBF by PET is ready for prime time as an integral part of clinical reports in diagnosis and risk assessment of patients with known or suspected CAD : For prime time not yet: Need impact and certainty.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2018
   Article
3. ISCHEMIA, to revascularize or not to revascularize.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2017
   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

3 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as