Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 364

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Unexplained Chest Pain in Patients with Normal Coronary Arteriograms: A Follow-up Study of Functional Status

Ockene, Ira S., Shay, Marilyn J., Alpert, Joseph S., Weiner, Bonnie H., Dalen, James E.·1980·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

Approximately 10 per cent of patients referred for coronary arteriography because of chest pain have angiographically normal coronary arteries and no other heart disease. We examined the functional status of 57 patients who had undergone catheterization (23 men and 34 women), all of whom were told that their hearts were normal, that their pain was noncardiac, and that no limitation on activity was necessary. At a mean follow-up time of 16 +/- 7.7 months, 27 of the 57 patients (47 per cent) still described their activity as limited by chest pain (before catheterization, 42 of 57 or 74 per cent); 29 of 57 (51 per cent) were unable to work (before catheterization, 36 of 57 or 63 per cent); and 25 of 57 (44 per cent) still believed that they had heart disease (before catheterization, 45 of 57 or 79 per cent). Use of medical facilities was significantly reduced after catheterization (P < 0.001). At follow-up the physician was more likely than the patient to believe that the symptoms had improved. We conclude that many of these patients remain limited in activity and may benefit from further efforts at comunication and rehabilitation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm198011273032201

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Ockene, I. S., Shay, M. J., Alpert, J. S., Weiner, B. H., & Dalen, J. E.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1980-11-27
Volume
303
Issue
22
Pages
1249-1252
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W1974147433
Cited by
364
References
0
FWCI
7.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.