ReviewJAMA cardiology2021
Interpretation of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire as an Outcome Measure in Clinical Trials and Clinical Care: A Review.
Review in JAMA cardiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 4 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
86 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Physiology- versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention for people with coronary artery disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Chinese patent medicine tongxinluo capsule as a supplement to treat chronic coronary syndromes: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Patient-centered care in Coronary Heart Disease: what do you want to measure? A systematic review of reviews on patient-reported outcome measures.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023Pooled it
- Sex differences in coronary disease health Status outcomes: the ISCHEMIA trial.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2026Trial
- Efficacy and safety of Yingxin pill for stable angina pectoris with heart blood stasis obstruction syndrome: a randomized, single-blind, positive-controlled trial.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Trial
- Coronary function testing vs angiography alone to guide treatment of angina with non-obstructive coronary arteries: the ILIAS ANOCA trial.European heart journal · 2025Trial
- Health Status Outcomes With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in ISCHEMIA.Circulation · 2025Trial
- Trajectories of Angina After Initial Invasive vs Conservative Strategy for Chronic Coronary Disease.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2025Trial
- Ranolazine effectively improves clinical symptoms in patients with slow flow coronary arteries: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Trial
- Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes of Complete Angina Relief in Symptomatic Patients in the ISCHEMIA Trial.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Trial
- Sex Differences in Psychosocial Factors and Angina in Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Trial
- Evaluating the Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Using Randomized Data From the ISCHEMIA Trial.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2025Trial
- Rehabilitation at Home Using Mobile Health for Older Adults Hospitalized for Ischemic Heart Disease: The RESILIENT Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Predictors of symptom improvement in patients with chronic coronary syndrome after percutaneous coronary intervention.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2024Trial
- Zibotentan in Microvascular Angina: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Trial.Circulation · 2024Trial
- Effect of Aficamten on Health Status Outcomes in Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: Results From SEQUOIA-HCM.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2024Trial
- Efficacy and Safety of Suxiao Jiuxin Pills in the Treatment of Chronic Coronary Syndrome with Intolerance to Adverse Effects of Long-acting Nitrates: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2024Trial
- International Variation in Health Status Benefits in Patients Undergoing Initial Invasive Versus Conservative Management for Chronic Coronary Disease: Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2024Trial
- Factors Associated With Coronary Angiography Performed Within 6 Months of Randomization to the Conservative Strategy in the ISCHEMIA Trial.Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions · 2024Trial
26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Patient-reported outcomes are increasingly used as end points in clinical trials, assessments in clinical care, and tools for population health, with an increasing role in quality assessment. For patients with coronary artery disease, the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) has emerged as the most commonly used measure of disease-specific health status to quantify patients' symptoms of angina and the extent to which their angina affects their functioning and quality of life. This review explains how to interpret the SAQ and describes the construction and face validity of the SAQ, focusing on aligning scores and changes in scores with clinical constructs. Observations: The SAQ asks questions similar to those an experienced clinician would ask of a patient with stable ischemic heart disease. Therefore, SAQ scores can be aligned with clinical constructs (eg, scores on the SAQ angina frequency scale of 0-30 points indicate daily angina, 31-60 points indicate weekly angina, 61-99 points indicate monthly angina, and 100 points indicate no angina), and changes in scores can be described by aligning them with changes in question responses. After clinical thresholds are defined, it is important for clinical trials to not simply report mean differences between treatment arms but to also report the distributions of patients who have had clinically important benefits so that a number needed to treat can be generated. Conclusions and Relevance: The widespread use of the SAQ is a consequence of its well-established validity, reproducibility, prognostic importance, and sensitivity to clinical change. Nevertheless, interpreting the SAQ can be challenging because of lack of familiarity with the clinical importance of its domains, either cross-sectionally or longitudinally. This review provides an overview of the interpretability of the SAQ as a foundation for its use as an end point in clinical trials, a tool to support more patient-centered care, and a means of facilitating population health strategies to provide a better foundation for the integration of patient experiences with clinical care.
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.