Published finding — does the expert body still believe it?
The ORBITA trial's stated primary conclusion — PCI does not improve exercise time vs. a sham procedure in stable single-vessel coronary disease. — replicates in independent cohorts.
TL;DR · AI-generated
In patients with medically treated angina and severe coronary stenosis, PCI did not increase exercise time by more than the effect of a placebo procedure, and the primary endpoint was difference in exercise time increment between groups.
Your position — does this noeme still stand given current evidence?
0% (impossible)
50%
100% (certain)
Proper-scoring-rule preview
Your position is kept on this device until you sign in.
Evidence stream
2 events · 1 snapshot
posterior drift
71% → 71% (0pp · 1 point)
Registry data
Apr 18, 2026
Peer-reviewed paper
Apr 18, 2026
Expert reactions · 0
Sign in to post a take, cite a related claim, or flag a methodological concern.
No reactions yet. Be the first expert to post a take, cite a related claim, or flag a methodological concern.
Source publication
Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial
Rasha Al-Lamee et al. · The Lancet · 2018
· openalex W2766491028 · s2 1ba069c9
Semantically related
Nearest claims in the expert-corpus vector space. Ordered by cosine distance — lower is closer.
0.1177
The ISCHEMIA trial's stated primary conclusion — In stable CAD with moderate-to-severe ischemia, an initial invasive strategy does not reduce cardiovascular events vs. optimal medical therapy. — replicates in independent cohorts.
0.1503
By 2028, sham-controlled trials (ORBITA-2 and successors) will define reimbursement criteria for elective PCI in stable CAD.
0.1512
Recent follow-up analyses of ISCHEMIA are confirming the original effect size in real-world data.
0.1742
Recent follow-up analyses of ORBITA are confirming the original effect size in real-world data.
0.2005
By 2028, elective PCI rates for stable CAD will have declined by ≥15% in the US post-ISCHEMIA, stabilizing at a new lower baseline.
0.2058
Recent follow-up analyses of REVASCAT are confirming the original effect size in real-world data.