<p>Coronary Sinus Reducing Stent for the Treatment of Refractory Angina Pectoris: A Health Technology Assessment</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To summarize the evidence on the clinical effectiveness and safety of coronary sinus reducing stent (CSRS) therapy in refractory angina pectoris (AP) patients. METHODS: for Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment. Primary outcomes for the clinical effectiveness domain were the proportion of patients with improvement in two or more Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina score classes, overall mean reduction of CCS class, and Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) quality of life (QoL) score improvement. Outcomes for the safety domain were adverse device effects (ADEs) and serious adverse device effects (SADEs). RESULTS: One 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. CONCLUSION: Even 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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".