A new and rapid scoring system to assess the scientific evidence from clinical trials

Journal of Interventional Cardiology

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 485-492

  Silber, Sigmund ^a,b  

^a Cardiology Practice and Hospital   (Germany)

^b Cardiology Practice and Hospital ^*  (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL STUDY; DISEASE MARKER; EQUIPMENT; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; REGISTER; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCORING SYSTEM; THROMBOSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CARDIOLOGY; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL;

EID: 33750867720     PISSN: 08964327     EISSN: 15408183     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8183.2006.00205.x     Document Type: Review

References (38)

1. Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Blackburn B, et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials 1981;2:31-49.
2. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995;16:62-73.
3. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1-12.
4. Davidoff F, Haynes B, Sackett D, et al. Evidence-based medicine. BMJ 1995;310:1085-1086.
5. Smith SC Jr, Feldman TE, Hirshfeld JW Jr, et al. ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention-Summary Article. A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:216-235.
6. ESC. Recommendations for Guidelines Production. http://www.escardio.org 2006.
7. Silber S, Albertsson P, Aviles FF, et al. Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: The task force for percutaneous coronary interventions of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2005;26:804-847.
8. Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gotzsche PC, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: An extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:781-788.
9. Antman EM, Anbe DT, Armstrong PW, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction - executive summary: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction). Circulation 2004;110:588-636.
10. Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ, et al. N Engl J Med 2003;349:1315-1323.
11. Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cox DA, et al. A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2004;350:221-231.
12. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 1998;280:278-280.
13. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998;352:609-613.
14. Kastrati A, Dibra A, Eberle S, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents vs paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: Meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA 2005;294:819-825.
15. Falagas ME, Rosmarakis ES. Clinical decision-making based on findings presented in conference abstracts: Is it safe for our patients? Eur Heart J 2006;27:2038-2039.
16. Goy JJ, Stauffer JC, Siegenthaler M, et al. A prospective randomized comparison between paclitaxel and sirolimus stents in the real world of interventional cardiology: The TAXi trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:308-311.
17. Fajadet J, Wijns W, Laarman GJ, et al. Randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting phosphorylcholine- encapsulated stent for treatment of native coronary artery lesions: Clinical and angiographic results of the ENDEAVOR II trial. Circulation 2006;114:798-806.
18. Dibra A, Kastrati A, Mehilli J, et al. Paclitaxel-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents to prevent restenosis in diabetic patients. N Engl J Med 2005;353:663-670.
19. Mehilli J, Dibra A, Kastrati A, et al. Randomized trial of paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents in small coronary vessels. Eur Heart J 2006;27:260-266.
20. Mehilli J, Kastrati A, Wessely R, et al. Randomized trial of a nonpolymer-based rapamycin-eluting stent versus a polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent for the reduction of late lumen loss. Circulation 2006;113:273-279.
21. Hernandez AV, Boersma E, Murray GD, et al. Subgroup analyses in therapeutic cardiovascular clinical trials: Are most of them misleading? Am Heart J 2006;151:257-264.
22. Silber S. Which parameter should be chosen as primary end-point for randomized drug-eluting stent studies? J Interv Cardiol 2004;17:375-385.
23. Jadad AR, Rennie D. The randomized controlled trial gets a middle-aged checkup. JAMA 1998;279:319-320.
24. Colombo A, Drzewiecki J, Banning A, et al. Randomized study to assess the effectiveness of slow- and moderate-release polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents for coronary artery lesions. Circulation 2003;108:788-794.
25. Lansky AJ, Costa RA, Mintz GS, et al. Non-polymer-based paclitaxel-coated coronary stents for the treatment of patients with de novo coronary lesions: Angiographic follow-up of the DELIVER clinical trial. Circulation 2004;109:1948-1954.
26. Mauri L, Orav EJ, Candia SC, et al. Robustness of late lumen loss in discriminating drug-eluting stents across variable observational and randomized trials. Circulation 2005;112:2833-2839.
27. Silber S. Cypher versus taxus: Are there differences? J Interven Cardiol 2005;18:441-446.
28. Choudhry NK, Stelfox HT, Detsky AS. Relationships between authors of clinical practice guidelines and the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA 2002;287:612-617.
29. Windecker S, Remondino A, Eberli FR, et al. Sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents for coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med 2005;353:653-662.
30. Silber S, Albertsson P, Aviles FF, et al. Reply: Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions. Letter to the Editor. Eur Heart J 2006;27:1757-1759.
31. Morice MC, Colombo A, Meier B, et al. Sirolimus- vs paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo coronary artery lesions: The REALITY trial: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2006;295:895-904.
32. Silber S. The Evidence-Based Medicine Center (EBMC). http://www.tctmd.com 2006.
33. Serruys P, Ong AT, Morice MC, et al. Arterial Revascularisation Therapies Study Part II - Sirolimus-eluting stents for the treatment of patients with multivessel de novo coronary artery lesions. EuroInterv 2005;1:147-156.
34. Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: "To whom do the results of this trial apply?" Lancet 2005;365:82-93.
35. NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence). Coronary artery stents (No. 71), (replacing Drug-eluting stents No. 4). http://www.nice.org.uk 2004.
36. Cohen DJ, Bakhai A, Shi C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of complex coronary stenoses: Results from the Sirolimus-Eluting Balloon Expandable Stent in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions (SIRIUS) trial. Circulation 2004;110:508-514.
37. Kaiser C, Brunner-La Rocca HP, Buser PT, et al. Incremental cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared with a third-generation bare-metal stent in a real-world setting: Randomised Basel Stent Kosten Effektivitats Trial (BASKET). Lancet 2005;366:921-929.
38. Kastrati A, Schömig A, Dirschinger J, et al. Increased risk of restenosis after placement of gold-coated stents: Results of a randomized trial comparing gold-coated with uncoated steel stents in patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation 2000;101:2478-2483.