ArticleKorean circulation journal2020
Ivabradine for the Therapy of Chronic Stable Angina Pectoris: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Korean circulation journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Saudi Heart Association Guidelines on Best Practices in the Management of Chronic Coronary Syndromes.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2022Article
- Ivabradine for the Therapy of Chronic Stable Angina Pectoris.Korean circulation journal · 2020Article
- Pre-operative continuation of ivabradine therapy for dilated cardiomyopathy - Skip it or not?Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesCoronary artery disease (CAD) is the number one cause of death worldwide. The I
methodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science (September 2019) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ivabradine versus placebo, standard therapy (ST) or other anti-anginal drugs. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and performed data extraction. We completed a 'risk of bias' assessment for all studies and assessed quality of the trial evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. We meta-analysed data were applicable and calculated mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios using a random-effects model.
resultsA total of 11 RCTs (n=16,039) were included. Compared to placebo/ST, we found significant effects on the frequency of hospitalisation in a small cohort (n=90; hazard ratio [HR], 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04, -0.92; p=0.04), but no effects on cardiovascular mortality (n=19,102; HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94, 1.28; p=0.25) or the frequency of angina pectoris episodes (n=167; weighted MD, -1.06; 95% CI, -2.74, -0.61; p=0.21).
conclusionsThe present work makes an important contribution to optimal patient care in angina pectoris by complementing the current European Society of Cardiology guideline-recommending class IIa with evidence level B-decisively with 8 further studies.
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.