MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108591631 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.1256

Systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled invasive interventions for the management of chronic stable angina

2020· article· en· W3108591631 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Manuel Rivera, David Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboAnginaMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialOdds ratioMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineCardiologyPhysical therapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The benefits of invasive therapies for chronic stable angina are in large part supported by open label studies comparing invasive procedures to medical therapy alone. Placebo effects are frequently unaccounted for as control arms rarely receive placebo (sham) interventions. This review pools studies comparing invasive therapies for chronic stable angina to placebo interventions and aims to measure the true effects of different invasive interventions. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of double blinded randomized placebo-controlled trials of invasive therapies for the management of chronic stable angina. The outcomes of interest were change in exercise tolerance time, change in Canadian cardiovascular society angina grade and rate of post-procedural complications including myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality. Results Six randomized placebo-controlled trials were included, with a total of 742 participants. Median follow-up ranged from 6 weeks to 16 months. Contrary to data reported in individual studies, pooled analysis favored invasive therapies over placebo procedures: exercise tolerance time was higher (standard mean difference (SMD) 35.2 seconds [4.4- 66.0]), angina scores were more likely to improve by ≥1 class (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.16 [1.05- 4.46]) and by ≥2 classes (OR 1.76 [1.13- 2.74]). There was no difference in post-procedural myocardial infarction (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 2.91 [0.61–13.93]) and all-cause mortality (IRR 0.39 [0.35–4.27]). Conclusions This meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials for chronic stable angina found a beneficial effect from invasive therapies. This favorable effect has not been seen in individual studies. Our findings suggest that sample sizes should be adjusted upwards in placebo-controlled studies to detect true treatment effects independent of the placebo effect. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0260.033
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.149
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicPain Management and Placebo EffectFrench-language works237,207