ReviewMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2020
Coronary Sinus Reducing Stent for the Treatment of Refractory Angina Pectoris: A Health Technology Assessment.
Review in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Son of a Lesser God: The Case of Cell Therapy for Refractory Angina.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Review
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo summarize the evidence on the clinical effectiveness and safety of coronary sinus reducing stent (CSRS) therapy in refractory angina pectoris (AP) patients.
methodsWe performed a systematic literature search in common databases (n=4). The evidence obtained was summarized according to GRADE methodology. A health technology assessment (HTA) was conducted using the HTA Core Model
resultsOne randomized controlled trial (RCT) was identified. Outcomes that showed statistically significant differences between CSRS and sham treatment (in favor of CSRS) were CCS angina score improvement of one or two classes, overall mean reduction of CCS class, and SAQ QoL score improvement. Concerning safety, the sham-controlled trial data indicate that there were fewer SADEs in the intervention group (19%) than in the control group (46%). SADEs reported in observation studies ranged from none to 30%. The most frequently reported SADEs were death and stable angina. In the RCT, the only case of death occurred in the control group. Concerning clinical effectiveness, the risk of bias (RoB) was rated to be low, and concerning safety, the RoB was rated to range from low to moderate. As assessed by GRADE, the overall strength of evidence for effectiveness and safety was moderate. Internal and external validity of the evidence base were low.
conclusionEven though the current evidence indicates that the assessed technology, CSRS, is potentially more effective than sham intervention for refractory AP patients, the lack of internal validity of the studies undermines the partially positive results.
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.