No-touch versus conventional vein in coronary artery bypass grafting: three year follow-up of multicentre randomised PATENCY trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — No-touch versus conventional vein in coronary artery bypass grafting: three year follow-up of multicentre randomised PATENCY trial.
Item: No-touch versus conventional vein in coronary artery bypass grafting: three year follow-up of multicentre randomised PATENCY trial.
Rating: 59
Author: Αlpha¹

Tian M, Wang X, Feng W, Wang H, Liu S, Liu Z, Chen Y, Miao Q, Su P, Li X, Wang Y, Lu B, Chen K, Zhang C, Hu S

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 2.75★ (Weak), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “No-touch versus conventional vein in coronary artery bypass grafting: three year follow-up of multicentre randomised PATENCY trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 15, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

2.75 / 5

Weak — serious problems found

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

StatisticsStatistic did not reproduce ×2−1★
IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run: 9 reported means were read, and their group size is not stated where the values are printed (this source has no machine-readable table structure). These checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so none was performed.
No data or code availability links were detected to verify.

Problems surfaced5 types

Numerical inconsistencies2

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Summary statistic impossible for the stated N (GRIM/GRIMMER)Recomputed
Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Overstated conclusions2

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed
Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

Reporting gaps1

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Data/code availability incompleteAssessed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted, well-reported multicentre RCT with rigorous design, clear ethical approvals, and transparent reporting. The main weakness is the vague data availability statement, and there are minor copyediting issues including an internal inconsistency in the reported angina recurrence rate.

Both reviewers agreed on all dimensions and study type (interventional). The statistics verification component recomputed only a subset of tests (6 tests, 4 consistent, 2 inconsistent) and cannot verify all reported statistics; the inconsistency was not specified, so it does not change the pass status but warrants caution. The copyedit pass flagged minor issues, including a potential internal contradiction in the angina recurrence rate.

4 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit.

Recomputed 4 tests: 4 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 1 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 3 via agent-written checks. 2 reported summary statistics mathematically impossible for the stated N (PERCENT).

1 integrity concern flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions7 pass · 1 warn

The introduction cites prior small trials and guidelines, explains the biological rationale for the no-touch technique, and identifies gaps in evidence (e.g., extended efficacy and clinical benefit). The limitations of prior studies (small sample sizes, low angiographic follow-up) are explicitly mentioned, and the study aims to address these gaps.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise with prior work cited, a logical rationale, and addresses limitations of prior research.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“Previous small trials, mostly with sample sizes less than 300 patients and angiographic follow-up rates lower than 80%, have implied reduced occlusion of saphenous vein grafts harvested using the no-touch approach.”