Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 5,497

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Clinical End Points in Coronary Stent Trials: A Case for Standardized Definitions

Cutlip, Donald E., Windecker, Stephan, Mehran, Roxana, Boam, Ashley, Cohen, David J., van Es, Gerrit-Anne, Gabriel Steg, P., Morel, Marie-angèle, Mauri, Laura, Vranckx, Pascal, McFadden, Eugene, Lansky, Alexandra, Hamon, Martial, Krucoff, Mitchell W., Serruys, Patrick W.·2007·Circulation

Abstract

Background— Although most clinical trials of coronary stents have measured nominally identical safety and effectiveness end points, differences in definitions and timing of assessment have created confusion in interpretation. Methods and Results— The Academic Research Consortium is an informal collaboration between academic research organizations in the United States and Europe. Two meetings, in Washington, DC, in January 2006 and in Dublin, Ireland, in June 2006, sponsored by the Academic Research Consortium and including representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and all device manufacturers who were working with the Food and Drug Administration on drug-eluting stent clinical trial programs, were focused on consensus end point definitions for drug-eluting stent evaluations. The effort was pursued with the objective to establish consistency among end point definitions and provide consensus recommendations. On the basis of considerations from historical legacy to key pathophysiological mechanisms and relevance to clinical interpretability, criteria for assessment of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stent thrombosis were developed. The broadly based consensus end point definitions in this document may be usefully applied or recognized for regulatory and clinical trial purposes. Conclusion— Although consensus criteria will inevitably include certain arbitrary features, consensus criteria for clinical end points provide consistency across studies that can facilitate the evaluation of safety and effectiveness of these devices.

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 · 10.1161/circulationaha.106.685313

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

See all 5,497

Metadata

Authors
Cutlip, D. E., Windecker, S., Mehran, R., Boam, A., Cohen, D. J., van Es, G.-A., Gabriel Steg, P., Morel, M.-A., Mauri, L., Vranckx, P., McFadden, E., Lansky, A., Hamon, M., Krucoff, M. W., & Serruys, P. W.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2007-05
Volume
115
Issue
17
Pages
2344-2351
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2087150869
Cited by
5,497
References
0
FWCI
197.52
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical End Points in Coronary Stent Trials: A Case for Standardized Definitions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.106.685313
The paper
Cutlip, D. E., Windecker, S., Mehran, R., Boam, A., Cohen, D. J., van Es, G.-A., Gabriel Steg, P., Morel, M.-A., Mauri, L., Vranckx, P., McFadden, E., Lansky, A., Hamon, M., Krucoff, M. W., & Serruys, P. W. (2007). Clinical End Points in Coronary Stent Trials: A Case for Standardized Definitions. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.106.685313

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.