SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2022
The sham effect of invasive interventions in chronic coronary syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Placebo and Nocebo Effects in Motor Performance: An Overview of Reviews.Brain and behavior · 2025Pooled it
- The Placebo Effect in Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- The effect of catheter-based sham renal denervation in hypertension: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- The Hidden Benefits of Septal Myectomy: The Journey Toward a More Holistic Approach.JACC. Advances · 2024Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSome patients with chronic coronary syndromes undergo invasive procedures but the efficacy of such interventions remains to be robustly established by randomised sham-controlled trials (RCTs). PURPOSE: To determine the sham effect in patients with chronic coronary syndromes enrolled in RCTs by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsIn April 2022, we performed a literature search for published patient-blind RCTs (CENTRAL, MEDLINE®, PsycINFO, and reference lists) with sham procedures, reporting the pre-post effects in the invasive sham arm among patients with Canadian cardiovascular society (CCS) angina or angina equivalents.
results16 RCTs were included with 546 patients in the sham arm. Pooled results showed that sham interventions were associated with: improvement of 7% (95% CI 2-11%; I
conclusionSham interventions in patients with chronic coronary syndromes were associated with a significant decrease in anginal episodes, NTG use, and CCS angina class and increased SAQ quality of life and exercise time. These results highlight the need for previous non sham-controlled trials to be interpreted with caution, and the importance of new invasive interventions to be evaluated versus a sham procedure.
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.