SynthesisMedicine2016
Effectiveness of Ivabradine in Treating Stable Angina Pectoris.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy of ivabradine versus beta-blockers in patients with mitral stenosis in sinus rhythm: systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2019Pooled it
- Efficacy and prognosis of continuous renal replacement therapy at different times in the treatment of patients with sepsis-induced acute kidney injury.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Ivabradine for the Therapy of Chronic Stable Angina Pectoris: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Korean circulation journal · 2020Article
- Ivabradine for coronary artery disease and/or heart failure-a protocol for a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.Systematic reviews · 2019Article
- Experimental and early investigational drugs for angina pectoris.Expert opinion on investigational drugs · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many studies show that ivabradine is effective for stable angina.This meta-analysis was performed to determine the effect of treatment duration and control group type on ivabradine efficacy in stable angina pectoris.Relevant articles in the English language in the PUBMED and EMBASE databases and related websites were identified by using the search terms "ivabradine," "angina," "randomized controlled trials," and "Iva." The final search date was November 2, 2015.Articles were included if they were published randomized controlled trials that related to ivabradine treatment of stable angina pectoris.Patients with stable angina pectoris were included.The patients were classified according to treatment duration (<3 vs ≥3 months) or type of control group (placebo vs beta-receptor blocker). Angina outcomes were heart rate at rest or peak, exercise duration, and time to angina onset.Seven articles were selected. There were 3747 patients: 2100 and 1647 were in the ivabradine and control groups, respectively. The ivabradine group had significantly longer exercise duration when they had been treated for at least 3 months, but not when treatment time was less than 3 months. Ivabradine significantly improved time to angina onset regardless of treatment duration. Control group type did not influence the effect of exercise duration (significant) or time to angina onset (significant).Compared with beta-blocker and placebo, ivabradine improved exercise duration and time to onset of angina in patients with stable angina. However, its ability to improve exercise duration only became significant after at least 3 months of treatment.
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.