Efficacy of Trimetazidine 80mg in Treatment of Stable Angina: A Systematic Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Stable angina is a prevalent form of ischemic heart disease characterized by recurrent, predictable chest pain or discomfort associated with physical or emotional stress. Trimetazidine, an anti-ischemic agent, has shown promise in alleviating angina symptoms. This systematic analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of Trimetazidine 80mg in the treatment of stable angina. Literature research on studies published between 2015 and 2022 was performed on a computerized database through PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Methods: In this meta-analysis, only the randomized control trial studies published between 2015 and 2022 were selected for quantitative analysis. Four parameters, i.e., mean arterial pressure, number of stable angina attacks per week, nitrate consumption, exercise tolerance test, and Canadian Cardiovascular Society classification of stable angina, were selected for evaluation. A specific criterion was used to assess the quality of trails. The standard statistical methods, pooled odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and pooled z and p values were applied in the analysis. Results: This systematic analysis included six randomized clinical trial studies clinically examining a total of 10238 patients of stable angina for the efficacy of Trimetazidine 80 mg single dose per day. The data was analyzed through RevMen software 5.4. The outcomes state that the lower number of per week angina attacks, nitrate consumption, and reduction in mean arterial pressure are associated with Trimetazidine 80 mg. However, Trimetazidine 80 mg improves response to exercise tolerance test and Canadian Cardiovascular Society classification. Conclusion: It is concluded through this systematic review that Trimetazidine 80 mg, a single dose per day, is more effective in improving cardiovascular health in comparison to conventional anti-angina therapies and placebo drugs. Patients with stable angina suffer from a limited number of angina attacks by using a single dose of Trimetazidine 80 mg. Therefore, Trimetazidine is the choice of drug against stable angina pectoris.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, 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".