Trial reportArteriosclerosis and thrombosis : a journal of vascular biology
Evaluation of human panelists in assessing coronary atherosclerosis.
Trial report in Arteriosclerosis and thrombosis : a journal of vascular biology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It reports registered trial NCT00000599. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Cholesterol-Lowering Atherosclerosis Study (CLAS)
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The Cholesterol Lowering Atherosclerosis Study, a randomized, angiographic clinical trial, has demonstrated the beneficial effect of niacin/colestipol therapy on coronary and femoral atherosclerosis. The primary outcome was a panel-determined consensus score evaluating global coronary changes determined angiographically at 2 years. This article presents an evaluation of interreader agreement in independently assessing the status of native coronary arteries and overall coronary condition. Parameters include 1) identification of the presence of lesions and lesion changes; 2) estimation of lesion severity (percent stenosis) and amount of change in lesion severity; and 3) global assessment of change in coronary status. Readers independently agreed on 1) presence of lesions (82%) and change in lesions (51%); 2) percent stenosis +/- 10% (76%) and change in stenosis +/- 10% (81%); and 3) global assessment of change in coronary status within one step (96%). Results of these analyses may be useful in effectively designing angiographic trials that use a panel of human evaluators as well as computerized methods for angiographic interpretation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.