Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 990

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Standardized End Point Definitions for Coronary Intervention Trials: The Academic Research Consortium-2 Consensus Document

Open access
Garcia-Garcia, Hector M., McFadden, Eugène P., Farb, Andrew, Mehran, Roxana, Stone, Gregg W., Spertus, John, Onuma, Yoshinobu, Morel, Marie-angèle, van Es, Gerrit-Anne, Zuckerman, Bram, Fearon, William F., Taggart, David, Kappetein, Arie-Pieter, Krucoff, Mitchell W., Vranckx, Pascal, Windecker, Stephan, Cutlip, Donald, Serruys, Patrick W.·2018·Circulation

Abstract

The Academic Research Consortium (ARC)-2 initiative revisited the clinical and angiographic end point definitions in coronary device trials, proposed in 2007, to make them more suitable for use in clinical trials that include increasingly complex lesion and patient populations and incorporate novel devices such as bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. In addition, recommendations for the incorporation of patient-related outcomes in clinical trials are proposed. Academic Research Consortium-2 is a collaborative effort between academic research organizations in the United States and Europe, device manufacturers, and European, US, and Asian regulatory bodies. Several in-person meetings were held to discuss the changes that have occurred in the device landscape and in clinical trials and regulatory pathways in the last decade. The consensus-based end point definitions in this document are endorsed by the stakeholders of this document and strongly advocated for clinical trial purposes. This Academic Research Consortium-2 document provides further standardization of end point definitions for coronary device trials, incorporating advances in technology and knowledge. Their use will aid interpretation of trial outcomes and comparison among studies, thus facilitating the evaluation of the 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.117.029289

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 26 references

Cited by

See all 990

Metadata

Authors
Garcia-Garcia, H. M., McFadden, E. P., Farb, A., Mehran, R., Stone, G. W., Spertus, J., Onuma, Y., Morel, M.-A., van Es, G.-A., Zuckerman, B., Fearon, W. F., Taggart, D., Kappetein, A.-P., Krucoff, M. W., Vranckx, P., Windecker, S., Cutlip, D., & Serruys, P. W.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2018-06-12
Volume
137
Issue
24
Pages
2635-2650
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2808265769
Cited by
990
References
26
FWCI
55.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Standardized End Point Definitions for Coronary Intervention Trials: The Academic Research Consortium-2 Consensus Document. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.117.029289
The paper
Garcia-Garcia, H. M., McFadden, E. P., Farb, A., Mehran, R., Stone, G. W., Spertus, J., Onuma, Y., Morel, M.-A., van Es, G.-A., Zuckerman, B., Fearon, W. F., Taggart, D., Kappetein, A.-P., Krucoff, M. W., Vranckx, P., Windecker, S., Cutlip, D., & Serruys, P. W. (2018). Standardized End Point Definitions for Coronary Intervention Trials: The Academic Research Consortium-2 Consensus Document. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.117.029289

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.