Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30310450›Full record

ReviewEuropean cardiology2016

Management of Refractory Angina Pectoris.

Kevin Cheng, Paul Sainsbury, Michael Fisher, Ranil de Silva

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European cardiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Reducing refractory angina.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Kevin ChengSpecialist Angina Service, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Paul SainsburyDepartment of Cardiology, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, UK.
Michael FisherInstitute for Cardiovascular Medicine and Science, Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital NHS Trust and Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Ranil de SilvaSpecialist Angina Service, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Bradford Royal Infirmary · GBImperial College London · GBLiverpool Heart and Chest Hospital NHS Trust · GBLung Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With improvements in survival from coronary artery disease (CAD) and an ageing population, refractory angina (RA) is becoming an increasingly common clinical problem facing clinicians in routine clinical practice. These patients experience chronic symptoms in the context of CAD, characterised by angina-type pain, which is uncontrolled despite optimal pharmacological, interventional and surgical therapy. Although mortality rates are no worse in this cohort, patients experience a significantly impaired quality of life with disproportionately high utilisation of healthcare services. It has been increasingly recognised that the needs of RA patients are multifactorial and best provided by specialist multi-disciplinary units. In this review, we consider the variety of therapies available to clinicians in the management of RA and discuss the promise of novel treatments.

Indexed as

Angina pectorischest paincoronary sinus reducerexternal enhanced counterpulsationmyocardial ischaemianeurological manifestationspragmatic rehabilitationrefractory angina pectorisspecialist angina servicesspinal cord stimulation

Identifiers

PMID30310450
PMCPMC6159461
OpenAlexW2565303122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.