Psychological interventions for symptomatic management of non-specific chest pain in patients with normal coronary anatomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recurrent chest pain in the absence of coronary artery disease is a common problem that sometimes leads to excess use of medical care. Although many studies examine the causes of pain in these patients, few clinical trails have evaluated treatment. The studies reviewed in this paper provide an insight into the effectiveness of psychological interventions for this group of patients. OBJECTIVES: To investigate psychological treatments for non-specific chest pain (NSCP) with normal coronary anatomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2002, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to 2002), CINAHL (1982 to 2002) EMBASE (1980 to 2002), PSYCH Info (1887 to 2002), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) and Biological Abstracts (January 1980 to 2002). We also searched citation lists and approached authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs with standardised outcome methodology that tested any form of psychotherapy for chest pain with normal anatomy. Diagnoses included non-specific chest pain, atypical chest pain, syndrome X, or chest pain with normal coronary anatomy (as either inpatients or outpatients). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed quality of studies. The authors contacted trial authors for further information about the RCTs included. MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies involving 403 randomised participants were included. There was a significant reduction in reports of chest pain in the first three months following the intervention; fixed effects relative risk = 0.68 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.81). This was maintained from 3 to 9 months afterwards; relative risk = 0.58 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.76). There was also a significant increase in the number of chest pain free days up to three months following the intervention; the standardized mean difference = 0.85 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.31). However, there was high heterogeneity for this test. Wide variability in outcome measures made integration of studies for secondary outcome measures difficult. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Review suggested a modest to moderate benefit for psychological interventions, particularly those using a cognitive-behavioural framework, which was largely restricted to the first three months after the intervention. The evidence for brief interventions was less clear. Further RCTs of psychological interventions for NSCP with follow-up periods of at least 12 months are needed.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".