Optimal Medical Therapy with or without PCI for Stable Coronary Disease

• p. 4 Results, Baseline Characteristics and Angiographic Data, para 2

  1077 patients, of whom 1006 (94%)

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Checked on the page-4 crop. The stated denominator is 1077. Figure 1 also gives 1006 receiving a stent, and in the next sentence 590+416=1006 with 59% and 41%, which match 1006. Nothing in the text supports a denominator that gives 94%. The difference is one percentage point. Only the authors can say whether the count or the percentage is the one to change.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 11 Figure 3, Diabetes, No

  1468

• p. 6 Table 1, History, Diabetes

  367 (32)

• p. 11 Figure 3, Diabetes

  No 1468

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: The Table 1 footnote says baseline data were missing for only one patient per group. Missing diabetes status is not reported. Several other Figure 3 splits also fall short of 2285 (EF 2254, MI 2247), so missing covariate data is a possible explanation, but the paper does not state it.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 7 Results, Subgroup Analyses

  (1.09; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.33; P = 0.77)

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Page 7. The Methods (p.3–4) say the adjusted analysis used a Cox model with eight covariates. They say the unadjusted primary comparison used a stratified log-rank test, but they do not say how the P value for the adjusted HR was obtained. On a Wald test with the log-HR SE derived from the interval, ln(1.09)=0.086 and SE=(ln1.33−ln0.90)/3.92≈0.0996, giving z≈0.87 and two-sided P≈0.39. The printed 0.77 is not reached that way. This is raised as a question about which test produced each number, not as a statement that a value is wrong.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 9 Discussion, first paragraph

  All secondary outcomes and individual com­ponents of the primary outcome showed no sig­nificant differences between the study groups

• p. 9 Table 3, Revascularization row

  0.60 (0.51–0.71)

• p. 7 Results, revascularization paragraph

  (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.71; P<0.001)

• p. 7 Results, Secondary Outcomes

  P<0.001

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: The Methods (p.3) name as secondary outcomes the death/MI/stroke composite and hospitalization for unstable angina, both nonsignificant, so the sentence may mean only the prespecified clinical secondary outcomes. However, Table 3's title puts revascularization among the secondary outcomes. Freedom from angina (Table 2, footnote †) also differed significantly at 1 and 3 years. As worded, the sentence overstates.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 11 Figure 3, Extent of CAD, Single-vessel disease

  700

• p. 7 Table 1 (continued), Vessels with disease, row 1

  361 (31)

• p. 11 Figure 3, Extent of CAD

  Single-vessel disease 700

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Table 1 (continued, p.7) vessel counts are complete (361+446+341=1148; 343+439+355=1137). The 4-patient gap is small and unexplained, and only the authors can say which number is right.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 8 Table 2, Angina-free, PCI 3 Yr

  602 (72)

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Checked on the page-8 image. 602 (72) fits neither rounding nor truncation against the stated 820. Other angina-free cells also deviate from the 'No. evaluated' row under rounding (595/1010=58.9 printed 58; 558/824=67.7 printed 67; 296/406=72.9 printed 72; 316/423=74.7 printed 74). This suggests the angina-free percentages use denominators that are not stated, but only the authors can confirm that.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 11 Figure 3, Myocardial infarction

  No 1371

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Table 1 notes no missing MI history beyond the one patient per group. The same 1371 also appears in the CCS II/III row (see C008). It is unclear which row holds the intended value.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 12 Appendix, authors' affiliations

  Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO (J.A.S.)

• p. 13 Appendix, U.S. Non-VA clinical sites

  America Heart Institute, St. Louis

• p. 13 Appendix, U.S. non-VA clinical sites

  Mid America Heart Institute, St. Louis — J. O’Keefe, P. Kennedy

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: which city is correct for the institute. In the files, the two appendix entries (p.12 and p.13) give different cities for the same institution name.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 12 Appendix, authors' affiliations

  West Haven, CT (P.M.H)

• p. 12 Appendix, authors' affiliations

  Nashville (D.J.M)

Judge's note: Confirmed on the page-12 crops.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 12 Appendix, Writing Committee

  R. O’Rourke (study cochair) K. Teo

• p. 12 Appendix, Writing Committee

  P. Hartigan. W. Weintraub

• p. 13 Appendix, Boston Medical Center site

  A. Jacobs. C. Berger

Judge's note: All three are visible in the page images (p.12 Writing Committee; p.13 Boston Medical Center site).

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 12 Appendix, authors' affiliations

  Queen Elizabeth Health Sciences Centre, Halifax

• p. 13 Appendix, Canada sites

  Queen Elizabeth II Health Care Center, Halifax

Judge's note: Both forms appear in the images (p.12 and p.13), attached to L.M.T./L. Title. This is a naming inconsistency, and either form may be acceptable.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 13 Appendix, VA sites

  Center, Lexington, KY — Booth, M. Shockey

Judge's note: I checked the crop image. The printed text reads "Lexington, KY — Booth, M. Shockey", so the missing initial is in the published page and is not an extraction artefact. Every other investigator in this list has at least one initial. Elsewhere the paper gives the name as "David C. Booth, M.D." in the author list and "D. Booth" in the committee list, so the fix is to print "D. Booth". This is a cosmetic omission.

Second check: none (judge only)