GuidelineNature reviews. Cardiology2018
Expert consensus document: A 'diamond' approach to personalized treatment of angina.
Guideline in Nature reviews. Cardiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
70 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of 11 oral preparations of single-source traditional Chinese medicines in the treatment of unstable angina pectoris: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Acupuncture combined with multiple therapies for angina pectoris: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Stellate Ganglion Block for Treating Angina Pectoris: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cardiovascular therapeutics · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnosis, Treatment, and Management for Chronic Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines and Consensus Statements.International journal of clinical practice · 2023Pooled it
- Allopurinol versus Trimetazidine for the Treatment of Angina: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Trial
- Korean Society of Interventional Cardiology Expert Consensus for the Management of Chronic Coronary Syndrome: Part 1.Korean circulation journal · 2026Review
- A Summary of Cardiometabolic Disorders in the Maghreb: Insights from the 2025 Saclay Cardiometabolic Summit.Cardiology and therapy · 2026Review
- Personalized management of angina and heart failure in clinical practice in the Middle East: a narrative review.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026Review
- Clinical Benefits of Invasive Strategy in Stable Angina Patients with Low Systolic Blood Pressure: A Post Hoc Analysis of the ISCHEMIA Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Contemporary Antianginal Therapy.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2026Review
- Coronary artery spasm in cardiac arrest survivors.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Review
- Clinical profile and long-term outcomes of chest pain patients with coronary microvascular dysfunction from the emergency department - results from the Yale-CMD registry.Microvascular research · 2026Article
- Predictive risk factors for adverse events during tooth extraction among elderly patients with cardiovascular diseases.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Guideline for Chronic Coronary Syndrome - 2025.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025Article
- Refractory angina: mechanisms and stratified treatment in obstructive and non-obstructive chronic myocardial ischaemic syndromes.European heart journal · 2025Review
- Drug repurposing: isosorbide mononitrate enhances tumor accumulation to augment sonodynamic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2025Article
- Effectiveness and Tolerability of Trimetazidine 80 mg Once Daily in Patients with Chronic Coronary Syndrome in Brazil: The V-GOOD Observational Study.Cardiology and therapy · 2025Article
- Diagnosing and treating stable angina: a contemporary approach for practicing physicians.Future cardiology · 2025Review
- What has changed in the management of chronic ischaemic heart disease? The new European Society of Cardiology Guidelines 2024.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Iron homeostasis and ferroptosis in muscle diseases and disorders: mechanisms and therapeutic prospects.Bone research · 2025Review
10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In clinical guidelines, drugs for symptomatic angina are classified as being first choice (β-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, short-acting nitrates) or second choice (ivabradine, nicorandil, ranolazine, trimetazidine), with the recommendation to reserve second-choice medications for patients who have contraindications to first-choice agents, do not tolerate them, or remain symptomatic. No direct comparisons between first-choice and second-choice treatments have demonstrated the superiority of one group of drugs over the other. Meta-analyses show that all antianginal drugs have similar efficacy in reducing symptoms, but provide no evidence for improvement in survival. The newer, second-choice drugs have more evidence-based clinical data that are more contemporary than is available for traditional first-choice drugs. Considering some drugs, but not others, to be first choice is, therefore, difficult. Moreover, double or triple therapy is often needed to control angina. Patients with angina can have several comorbidities, and symptoms can result from various underlying pathophysiologies. Some agents, in addition to having antianginal effects, have properties that could be useful depending on the comorbidities present and the mechanisms of angina, but the guidelines do not provide recommendations on the optimal combinations of drugs. In this Consensus Statement, we propose an individualized approach to angina treatment, which takes into consideration the patient, their comorbidities, and the underlying mechanism of disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28880025What 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.