Trial reportCirculation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes2025
Quality of Life Outcomes With a Risk-Based Precision Testing Strategy Versus Usual Testing in Stable Patients With Suspected Coronary Disease: Results From the PRECISE Randomized Trial.
Trial report in Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03702244 (Prospective Randomized Trial of the Optimal Evaluation of Cardiac Symptoms and Revascularization), which is not on this 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.
Prospective Randomized Trial of the Optimal Evaluation of Cardiac Symptoms and Revascularization
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe PRECISE (Prospective Randomized Trial of the Optimal Evaluation of Cardiac Symptoms and Revascularization) trial compared an investigational precision diagnostic testing strategy (n=1057) with usual testing (n=1046) in patients with stable chest pain and suspected coronary artery disease. Quality of life (QOL) outcomes were a prespecified secondary end point.
methodsWe assessed QOL by structured interviews in all trial participants at baseline and 45 days, 6 months, and 12 months postrandomization. QOL assessments included angina-related QOL (19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire [SAQ-19]), generic health status (EQ-5D), and a 4-item care satisfaction survey (at 45 days only). The prespecified primary comparison was the 6-month SAQ Summary score outcomes (scale, 0 to 100; higher scores indicate greater health status). QOL data collection rates were high, with 99% complete baseline SAQ scores and 86.5% complete at the 6-month primary comparison follow-up. All comparisons were made as randomized.
resultsAt baseline, mean SAQ Summary scores were 70.9 in the Precision Strategy group (n=1050) and 70.4 in the Usual Testing group (n=1042). By 6 months, mean SAQ Summary scores had improved to 89.9 in the Precision Strategy group and 89.2 in the Usual Testing group, with a mean adjusted difference of 0.8 (95% CI, -0.3 to 2.0). The SAQ component scores showed similar improvement from baseline in both groups and no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences between the 2 groups at any follow-up time point. By 6 months, 66% of patients in both groups were chest pain-free. EQ-5D visual analog scores also improved from baseline and showed no difference between groups during follow-up. Care satisfaction scores were high and similar at 45 days.
conclusionsIn stable patients with symptoms suggesting coronary artery disease, angina-related and overall QOL improved substantially over the initial 6 months independent of the testing strategy assigned. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03702244.
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.