Published finding — does the expert body still believe it?
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.
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
Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease
David J. Maron et al. · New England Journal of Medicine · 2020
· openalex W3014025744
Semantically related
Nearest claims in the expert-corpus vector space. Ordered by cosine distance — lower is closer.
0.1177
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.
0.1200
Recent follow-up analyses of ISCHEMIA are confirming the original effect size in real-world data.
0.1948
By 2028, elective PCI rates for stable CAD will have declined by ≥15% in the US post-ISCHEMIA, stabilizing at a new lower baseline.
0.2066
By 2028, sham-controlled trials (ORBITA-2 and successors) will define reimbursement criteria for elective PCI in stable CAD.
0.2143
Recent follow-up analyses of REVASCAT are confirming the original effect size in real-world data.
0.2282
The DEFUSE-3 trial's stated primary conclusion — Imaging-selected patients benefit from thrombectomy 6–16h after last-known-well. — replicates in independent cohorts.