Systematic Review of Literature Citing the ISCHEMIA Trial.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Current Cardiology Reports Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-16 DOI:10.1007/s11886-024-02031-8
David J King, Christian Eskander, Jacob Ricci, David Gittess, Rushi Patel, Mitchell Bourne, Jeffery Budweg, David E Winchester
{"title":"Systematic Review of Literature Citing the ISCHEMIA Trial.","authors":"David J King, Christian Eskander, Jacob Ricci, David Gittess, Rushi Patel, Mitchell Bourne, Jeffery Budweg, David E Winchester","doi":"10.1007/s11886-024-02031-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Optimal therapy for patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CCD) has long been a topic under investigation and a subject of debate. Seeking to clarify appropriate management, the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial compared medical management versus coronary angiography for patients with stable ischemic heart disease. Its reception in the medical community has been met with both acclaim and criticism. In light of such disparate views of this trial, a systematic review of the literature citing the ISCHEMIA trial was performed.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>All articles citing the ISCHEMIA trial on PubMed as of July 21, 2023, were compiled and underwent qualitative analysis. A total of 430 articles were evaluated; 109 (25.3%) did not offer substantial commentary on ISCHEMIA and cite it as background evidence for further study. Of the commentary articles, the majority (224, 52.1%) gave balanced, honest appraisals of the ISCHEMIA trial. A total of 46 (10.7%) strongly praised the trial while another 39 (9.1%) were strongly critical of the results. Almost three-quarters of the literature citing the ISCHEMIA trial was commentary in nature, with roughly equal distribution across the spectrum of praise and criticism. Despite being one of the largest studies on CCD and coronary revascularization ever conducted, the impact of ISCHEMIA on the cardiology community appears to be mixed.</p>","PeriodicalId":10829,"journal":{"name":"Current Cardiology Reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Cardiology Reports","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-024-02031-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose of review: Optimal therapy for patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CCD) has long been a topic under investigation and a subject of debate. Seeking to clarify appropriate management, the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial compared medical management versus coronary angiography for patients with stable ischemic heart disease. Its reception in the medical community has been met with both acclaim and criticism. In light of such disparate views of this trial, a systematic review of the literature citing the ISCHEMIA trial was performed.

Recent findings: All articles citing the ISCHEMIA trial on PubMed as of July 21, 2023, were compiled and underwent qualitative analysis. A total of 430 articles were evaluated; 109 (25.3%) did not offer substantial commentary on ISCHEMIA and cite it as background evidence for further study. Of the commentary articles, the majority (224, 52.1%) gave balanced, honest appraisals of the ISCHEMIA trial. A total of 46 (10.7%) strongly praised the trial while another 39 (9.1%) were strongly critical of the results. Almost three-quarters of the literature citing the ISCHEMIA trial was commentary in nature, with roughly equal distribution across the spectrum of praise and criticism. Despite being one of the largest studies on CCD and coronary revascularization ever conducted, the impact of ISCHEMIA on the cardiology community appears to be mixed.

引用 ISCHEMIA 试验的系统性文献综述。
综述的目的:长期以来,慢性冠状动脉疾病(CCD)患者的最佳治疗方法一直是研究课题和争论的焦点。为了明确适当的治疗方法,国际医疗和侵入性方法健康效果比较研究(ISCHEMIA)试验对稳定型缺血性心脏病患者的医疗管理和冠状动脉造影术进行了比较。该试验在医学界受到了好评和批评。鉴于对该试验的不同看法,我们对引用 ISCHEMIA 试验的文献进行了系统回顾:截至 2023 年 7 月 21 日,PubMed 上所有引用 ISCHEMIA 试验的文章都进行了汇编和定性分析。共评估了 430 篇文章,其中 109 篇(25.3%)没有对 ISCHEMIA 进行实质性评论,而是将其作为进一步研究的背景证据。在评论文章中,大多数(224 篇,52.1%)对 ISCHEMIA 试验进行了平衡、真实的评价。共有 46 篇(10.7%)文章对试验给予了高度评价,另有 39 篇(9.1%)文章对试验结果提出了强烈批评。几乎四分之三引用 ISCHEMIA 试验的文献都是评论性的,褒贬程度大致相当。尽管 ISCHEMIA 是有史以来规模最大的 CCD 和冠状动脉血运重建研究之一,但它对心脏病学界的影响似乎好坏参半。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Current Cardiology Reports
Current Cardiology Reports CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
2.70%
发文量
209
期刊介绍: The aim of this journal is to provide timely perspectives from experts on current advances in cardiovascular medicine. We also seek to provide reviews that highlight the most important recently published papers selected from the wealth of available cardiovascular literature. We accomplish this aim by appointing key authorities in major subject areas across the discipline. Section editors select topics to be reviewed by leading experts who emphasize recent developments and highlight important papers published over the past year. An Editorial Board of internationally diverse members suggests topics of special interest to their country/region and ensures that topics are current and include emerging research. We also provide commentaries from well-known figures in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信