Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38492177›Full record

SynthesisCurrent cardiology reports2024

Systematic Review of Literature Citing the ISCHEMIA Trial.

David J King, Christian Eskander, Jacob Ricci, David Gittess, Rushi Patel, Mitchell Bourne, Jeffery Budweg, David E Winchester

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Current cardiology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 94% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

David J KingDepartment of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. David.King@medicine.ufl.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8741-4761
Christian EskanderDepartment of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-1954-979X
Jacob RicciCollege of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6752-1423
David GittessDepartment of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-5643-0972
Rushi PatelDepartment of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-6047-1185
Mitchell BourneDepartment of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1773-5658
Jeffery BudwegDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7044-9979
David E WinchesterDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5224-2891
University of Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewOptimal therapy for patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CCD) has long been a topic under investigation and a subject of debate. Seeking to clarify appropriate management, the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial compared medical management versus coronary angiography for patients with stable ischemic heart disease. Its reception in the medical community has been met with both acclaim and criticism. In light of such disparate views of this trial, a systematic review of the literature citing the ISCHEMIA trial was performed. RECENT

findingsAll articles citing the ISCHEMIA trial on PubMed as of July 21, 2023, were compiled and underwent qualitative analysis. A total of 430 articles were evaluated; 109 (25.3%) did not offer substantial commentary on ISCHEMIA and cite it as background evidence for further study. Of the commentary articles, the majority (224, 52.1%) gave balanced, honest appraisals of the ISCHEMIA trial. A total of 46 (10.7%) strongly praised the trial while another 39 (9.1%) were strongly critical of the results. Almost three-quarters of the literature citing the ISCHEMIA trial was commentary in nature, with roughly equal distribution across the spectrum of praise and criticism. Despite being one of the largest studies on CCD and coronary revascularization ever conducted, the impact of ISCHEMIA on the cardiology community appears to be mixed.

Indexed as

Coronary Artery DiseaseCoronary AngiographyHumansMyocardial IschemiaPercutaneous Coronary InterventionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCoronary angiographyCoronary artery diseaseMyocardial revascularizationSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38492177
OpenAlexW4392880251

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.