Kaimen Rigor reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

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

Name: Kaimen Rigor review — 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: Alpha1

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

Kaimen 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 Kaimen Rigor review.

Alpha1 Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Alpha1 Editorial · August 15, 2026

Read alongside

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

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

Read full text (PMC)

DOI

10.1136/bmj-2024-082883

Share this Kaimen Rigor review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://alpha1science.com/verify/3571ac30-bd38-4fc2-88a3-a046c68d5e82" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://alpha1science.com/verify/3571ac30-bd38-4fc2-88a3-a046c68d5e82/badge" alt="Kaimen 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.”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Record fingerprint

acc5638d0e23b17e39a8433c0a90ffd79e8f5d63325a311b3692445f4608a709

Verify via API

Issued Aug 15, 2026Engine 7.39.0

Alpha1 assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →

Alpha¹ by Kaimen

Fetching the latest research

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

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

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

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

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Alpha1 Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Alpha1 Editorial · August 15, 2026

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen 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.

Biggest issues

01Printed percentage does not match its own count
highArithmeticrecomputedFull detail
99.4% does not match the reported count 2621/2655
“99.4% (2621) attended the three year follow-up visit”
Results ¶1Find in source
02Printed percentage does not match its own count
highArithmeticrecomputedFull detail
86.5% does not match the reported count 2281/2655
“86.5% (2281) received computed tomography angiography”
Results ¶1Find in source
03Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The primary efficacy claim is based on vein graft occlusion detected by CT angiography, which is a surrogate marker for clinical outcomes. Although the trial also reports reductions in clinical events (myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization), the primary endpoint is graft occlusion. The paper does not provide evidence of target engagement at the tested dose (e.g., PK/PD) nor does it cite validated evidence linking graft occlusion to clinical outcomes, though it mentions that vein graft failure is associated with adverse outcomes. However, the link is not formally validated in the paper.
“The primary outcome for the initial trial was three month vein graft occlusion, as diagnosed by computed tomography (CT) angiography or earlier clinically driven coronary angiography.”
Find in source

Findings by category

201ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 202OverreachOverstated conclusions 03AuthenticityNone found 104DisclosureReporting gaps 05AvailabilityNone found · partly checked 06Copyedit6 minor suggestions

This Kaimen Rigor review uses Kaimen 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.

Numerical inconsistencies

2 findings · worst high

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

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).

Overstated conclusions

2 findings · worst high

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

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.

Data authenticity concerns

None found

An adversarial read for patterns associated with data that may not be genuine: results that look too clean, implausibly large effects, duplicated data or images, and methods that do not match the results reported.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Reporting gaps

1 finding · worst medium

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

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

“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.”

Introduction ¶3Find in source

“This study aims to address the critical gap in evidence regarding the extended efficacy of the no-touch vein harvesting technique in CABG surgery.”

Introduction ¶4Find in source

“Previous research on vein graft failure has primarily relied on older observational data, which are prone to confounders and biases.”

DiscussionFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise, citing prior work and guidelines, and provides a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

Introduction ¶4Find in source

“This study aims to address the critical gap in evidence regarding the extended efficacy of the no-touch vein harvesting technique in CABG surgery.”

Introduction ¶5Find in source

Randomization method is described (web-based central system, fixed block size, stratified by centre). Blinding is described for outcome adjudication (central Core Laboratory, unaware of treatment assignments). Power analysis is reported with sample size recalculation. Inclusion/exclusion criteria are pre-specified. Outlier handling is addressed via ITT and mITT analyses with multiple imputation. Controls are inherent in the randomized comparison. Independent replication is not applicable for a single pivotal trial.

Sub-criteria

controlsN/A

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study design is rigorous with adequate randomization, blinding, power analysis, and inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Evidence

“A web based central randomisation system incorporated in the registration system was used for allocation ( https://ccsr.cvs-china.com/ ). The randomisation code with fixed block size was generated by SAS.”

MethodsFind in source

“CT angiography results and clinical outcomes were centrally adjudicated by research personnel who were unaware of the treatment assignments.”

MethodsFind in source

“Using a two sided significance level of 0.05 and aiming for 90% power, the initial calculation indicated that 2000 patients would be required to achieve sufficient statistical power.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The trial design is rigorous: randomised, stratified, with a pre-specified sample size, ITT/mITT analyses, and central adjudication.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, Study design]

“A web based central randomisation system incorporated in the registration system was used for allocation... The randomisation code with fixed block size was generated by SAS. Randomisation was stratified by investigation centre.”

“CT angiography results and clinical outcomes were centrally adjudicated by research personnel who were unaware of the treatment assignments.”

MethodsFind in source

paraphrase[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“We calculated the original sample size for the study based on an assumed effect size of a 43% relative risk reduction for the primary endpoint (from 8.4% to 4.8%). Using a two sided significance level of 0.05 and aiming for 90% power, the initial calculation indicated that 2000 patients would be required.”

Sex is reported (22% female). Age and health status are reported (mean age 61±8 years, comorbidities). Demographics are reported in Table 1. Species/strain and housing conditions are not applicable for a human trial.

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Biological variables are adequately reported for a human trial, including sex, age, and demographics.

Evidence

“22% were women.”

AbstractFind in source

“Mean age of participants was 61 years (standard deviation ±8 years)”

AbstractFind in source

“Data are numbers (%) unless stated otherwise. Baseline characteristics are presented for all randomised patients (n=2655).”

Table 1Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Demographic and clinical characteristics are well reported, including sex, age, and comorbidities.

Evidence

“Mean age of participants was 61 years (standard deviation ±8 years) and 22% were women.”

AbstractFind in source

“Table 1 Baseline characteristics of participants”

Table 1Find in source

The protocol was approved by the institutional review board of Fuwai Hospital (2016-827). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice is stated.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Ethical approval and informed consent are adequately reported.

Evidence

“The protocol for PATENCY was reviewed and approved by the independent institutional review board of Fuwai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science (2016-827).”

EthicsFind in source

“All participants provided written informed consent to participate in the trial.”

EthicsFind in source

“This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice.”

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethical approval and informed consent are clearly documented.

Evidence

“The protocol for PATENCY was reviewed and approved by the independent institutional review board of Fuwai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science (2016-827).”

EthicsFind in source

“All participants provided written informed consent to participate in the trial.”

EthicsFind in source

“This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice.”

MethodsFind in source

The no-touch and conventional techniques are described in detail. Statistical software (SAS 9.4, R 4.0.1) is identified. No antibodies, cell lines, or mycoplasma testing are applicable. The surgical technique is the intervention, not a reagent, but it is adequately described.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedN/A

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

The investigational product (surgical technique) is adequately described, and software tools are identified.

Evidence

“All analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA) and R (version 4.0.1, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“In the no-touch technical group, venous adventitia and perivascular tissue were meticulously preserved, and manual distension of the veins was strictly avoided.”

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

The investigational product (surgical technique) is described in detail, and statistical software is identified.

Evidence

“All analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA) and R (version 4.0.1, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).”

Statistical analysisFind in source

Tests are named (t-test, Mann-Whitney, chi-square, GEE, Cox). Assumptions are handled by design (GEE for clustering). Exact p-values are reported. Effect sizes with CIs are reported throughout. Software is identified. Data presentation includes per-group n and CIs. Mathematical plausibility checks were not performed due to large N and continuous outcomes.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well-reported, with exact p-values and effect sizes with confidence intervals.

Evidence

“Comparisons across the groups were performed using a two tailed unpaired t test for normally distributed continuous variables and Mann-Whitney for non-normally distributed variables.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

paraphrase[Abstract, Results]

“P<0.001”

“odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.80”

AbstractFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well-described, with effect sizes and confidence intervals reported.

Evidence

“Comparisons across the groups were performed using a two tailed unpaired t test for normally distributed continuous variables and Mann-Whitney for non-normally distributed variables. Pearson’s χ 2 test was performed for categorical variables.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“The no-touch group showed a significantly lower vein graft occlusion rate (5.7% v 9.0%, P<0.001) than the conventional group (odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.80)”

AbstractFind in source

The data availability statement says de-identified data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request, but does not specify a platform, conditions, or timeframe. This is reported_but_inadequate. No repository deposit or accession numbers are provided. Code sharing is not applicable.

Sub-criteria

code sharingN/A

accession numbersN/A

repository depositNOT REPORTED

data availability statementINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 80% conf

Data availability statement is present but vague, lacking a concrete access mechanism.

Evidence

“De-identified participant level and graft level data underlying the results reported in this article, together with the README/”

Data availabilityFind in source

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

A data availability statement exists but is vague, lacking a concrete access mechanism or repository.

Evidence

“De-identified participant level and graft level data underlying the results reported in this article, together with the README/”

Data availabilityFind in source

Trial registration is provided (NCT03126409). Methods are detailed. Limitations are discussed. Conclusions are proportional. Funding and COI are stated. Reporting guideline (CONSORT) is not explicitly mentioned, but the paper follows it.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Reporting is transparent with trial registration, funding, and limitations discussed.

Evidence

“ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03126409”

AbstractFind in source

“Despite the strengths of this study, several limitations should be acknowledged.”

LimitationsFind in source

“This study was supported by National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding (grant No 2023-GSP-RC-07)”

FundingFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The manuscript is transparent, with trial registration, detailed methods, limitations, and funding/COI statements.

Evidence

“Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03126409 .”

AbstractFind in source

“Despite the strengths of this study, several limitations should be acknowledged.”

LimitationsFind in source

paraphrase[Funding and Competing interests]

“Funding: This study was supported by National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding (grant No 2023-GSP-RC-07)... Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form...”

Registered (1 ID: ClinicalTrials.gov). No reporting guideline cited.

Broken references and links

None found · partly checked

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

Nothing surfaced — but not everything feeding this category ran (missing: data/code link verification), so read this as a partial clean bill.

Checked 50 references by DOI: 50 verified.

Copyediting

6 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 6 minor suggestions below.

6 copyedit issues flagged: mostly typo, consistency, clarity.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

The published work is robust overall, but an informed reader should weigh the vague data availability statement and the minor internal inconsistency in the reported angina recurrence rate (8.2% vs 8.4%). These are not validity threats but warrant a correction or clarification from the authors.

1.
HIGHreporting
In the Data availability statement, specify a concrete access mechanism (e.g., a data access committee, a repository like Zenodo, or a managed-access platform) and the conditions/timeframe for requesting data, and complete the truncated sentence.
The current statement is vague and truncated, which is a reporting gap that limits reproducibility and transparency.
2.
HIGHcopyedit
In the Discussion, Policy implications section, correct the recurrent angina rate in the conventional group from 8.2% to 8.4% to match Table 3 and the Results section.
The internal inconsistency (8.2% vs 8.4%) is a factual error that could confuse readers and undermine trust in the reported outcomes.
3.
MEDIUMreporting
Add an explicit statement referencing the CONSORT reporting guideline (e.g., 'This report follows the CONSORT statement') in the Methods or a dedicated section.
Explicitly stating adherence to CONSORT improves reporting transparency and is expected for a clinical trial.
4.
MEDIUMdata code
Consider depositing the statistical analysis code (e.g., SAS and R scripts) in a public repository with a DOI, even if the patient-level data are not publicly available.
Sharing analysis code enhances reproducibility and is a low-cost way to strengthen the data/code availability.
5.
MEDIUMcopyedit
In the Abstract, Results, add a space before the minus sign in 'absolute risk difference−3.2%' to read 'absolute risk difference −3.2%'.
The missing space is a minor typographical error that affects readability.
6.
LOWcopyedit
In the Methods, Statistical analysis, rephrase 'We performed this initial calculation under the assumption of independent samples at the patient and vessel level' to 'We performed this initial calculation assuming independent samples at the patient and vessel level'.
The original phrasing is grammatically awkward and can be clarified.
7.
LOWreporting
In the Discussion, add a brief note on the generalizability of findings to non-Chinese populations, given the single-country setting.
This contextualizes the conclusions and addresses a potential limitation for international readers.

Full text (53,091 chars)Analyzed: Aug 15, 2026

Start the discussion on JRNLClub

Community discussion on jrnlclub.com

Read alongside

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

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

Read full text (PMC)

DOI

10.1136/bmj-2024-082883

Share this Kaimen Rigor review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://alpha1science.com/verify/3571ac30-bd38-4fc2-88a3-a046c68d5e82" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://alpha1science.com/verify/3571ac30-bd38-4fc2-88a3-a046c68d5e82/badge" alt="Kaimen 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.”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Record fingerprint

acc5638d0e23b17e39a8433c0a90ffd79e8f5d63325a311b3692445f4608a709

Verify via API

Issued Aug 15, 2026Engine 7.39.0

Alpha1 assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen 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.

Biggest issues

01Printed percentage does not match its own count
highArithmeticrecomputedFull detail
99.4% does not match the reported count 2621/2655
“99.4% (2621) attended the three year follow-up visit”
Results ¶1Find in source
02Printed percentage does not match its own count
highArithmeticrecomputedFull detail
86.5% does not match the reported count 2281/2655
“86.5% (2281) received computed tomography angiography”
Results ¶1Find in source
03Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The primary efficacy claim is based on vein graft occlusion detected by CT angiography, which is a surrogate marker for clinical outcomes. Although the trial also reports reductions in clinical events (myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization), the primary endpoint is graft occlusion. The paper does not provide evidence of target engagement at the tested dose (e.g., PK/PD) nor does it cite validated evidence linking graft occlusion to clinical outcomes, though it mentions that vein graft failure is associated with adverse outcomes. However, the link is not formally validated in the paper.
“The primary outcome for the initial trial was three month vein graft occlusion, as diagnosed by computed tomography (CT) angiography or earlier clinically driven coronary angiography.”
Find in source

Findings by category

201ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 202OverreachOverstated conclusions 03AuthenticityNone found 104DisclosureReporting gaps 05AvailabilityNone found · partly checked 06Copyedit6 minor suggestions

Numerical inconsistencies

2 findings · worst high

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

Overstated conclusions

2 findings · worst high

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

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.

Data authenticity concerns

None found

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Reporting gaps

1 finding · worst medium

Data/code availability incompleteAssessed

Eight Dimensions7 pass · 1 warn

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

Introduction ¶3Find in source

“This study aims to address the critical gap in evidence regarding the extended efficacy of the no-touch vein harvesting technique in CABG surgery.”

Introduction ¶4Find in source

“Previous research on vein graft failure has primarily relied on older observational data, which are prone to confounders and biases.”

DiscussionFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise, citing prior work and guidelines, and provides a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

Introduction ¶4Find in source

“This study aims to address the critical gap in evidence regarding the extended efficacy of the no-touch vein harvesting technique in CABG surgery.”

Introduction ¶5Find in source

Sub-criteria

controlsN/A

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study design is rigorous with adequate randomization, blinding, power analysis, and inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Evidence

MethodsFind in source

“CT angiography results and clinical outcomes were centrally adjudicated by research personnel who were unaware of the treatment assignments.”

MethodsFind in source

“Using a two sided significance level of 0.05 and aiming for 90% power, the initial calculation indicated that 2000 patients would be required to achieve sufficient statistical power.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The trial design is rigorous: randomised, stratified, with a pre-specified sample size, ITT/mITT analyses, and central adjudication.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, Study design]

“CT angiography results and clinical outcomes were centrally adjudicated by research personnel who were unaware of the treatment assignments.”

MethodsFind in source

paraphrase[Methods, Statistical analysis]

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Biological variables are adequately reported for a human trial, including sex, age, and demographics.

Evidence

“22% were women.”

AbstractFind in source

“Mean age of participants was 61 years (standard deviation ±8 years)”

AbstractFind in source

“Data are numbers (%) unless stated otherwise. Baseline characteristics are presented for all randomised patients (n=2655).”

Table 1Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Demographic and clinical characteristics are well reported, including sex, age, and comorbidities.

Evidence

“Mean age of participants was 61 years (standard deviation ±8 years) and 22% were women.”

AbstractFind in source

“Table 1 Baseline characteristics of participants”

Table 1Find in source

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Ethical approval and informed consent are adequately reported.

Evidence

“The protocol for PATENCY was reviewed and approved by the independent institutional review board of Fuwai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science (2016-827).”

EthicsFind in source

“All participants provided written informed consent to participate in the trial.”

EthicsFind in source

“This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice.”

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethical approval and informed consent are clearly documented.

Evidence

“The protocol for PATENCY was reviewed and approved by the independent institutional review board of Fuwai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science (2016-827).”

EthicsFind in source

“All participants provided written informed consent to participate in the trial.”

EthicsFind in source

“This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice.”

MethodsFind in source

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedN/A

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

The investigational product (surgical technique) is adequately described, and software tools are identified.

Evidence

“All analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA) and R (version 4.0.1, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“In the no-touch technical group, venous adventitia and perivascular tissue were meticulously preserved, and manual distension of the veins was strictly avoided.”

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

The investigational product (surgical technique) is described in detail, and statistical software is identified.

Evidence

“All analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA) and R (version 4.0.1, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).”

Statistical analysisFind in source

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well-reported, with exact p-values and effect sizes with confidence intervals.

Evidence

“Comparisons across the groups were performed using a two tailed unpaired t test for normally distributed continuous variables and Mann-Whitney for non-normally distributed variables.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

paraphrase[Abstract, Results]

“P<0.001”

“odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.80”

AbstractFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well-described, with effect sizes and confidence intervals reported.

Evidence

Statistical analysisFind in source

“The no-touch group showed a significantly lower vein graft occlusion rate (5.7% v 9.0%, P<0.001) than the conventional group (odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.80)”

AbstractFind in source

Sub-criteria

code sharingN/A

accession numbersN/A

repository depositNOT REPORTED

data availability statementINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 80% conf

Data availability statement is present but vague, lacking a concrete access mechanism.

Evidence

“De-identified participant level and graft level data underlying the results reported in this article, together with the README/”

Data availabilityFind in source

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

A data availability statement exists but is vague, lacking a concrete access mechanism or repository.

Evidence

“De-identified participant level and graft level data underlying the results reported in this article, together with the README/”

Data availabilityFind in source

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Reporting is transparent with trial registration, funding, and limitations discussed.

Evidence

“ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03126409”

AbstractFind in source

“Despite the strengths of this study, several limitations should be acknowledged.”

LimitationsFind in source

“This study was supported by National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding (grant No 2023-GSP-RC-07)”

FundingFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The manuscript is transparent, with trial registration, detailed methods, limitations, and funding/COI statements.

Evidence

“Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03126409 .”

AbstractFind in source

“Despite the strengths of this study, several limitations should be acknowledged.”

LimitationsFind in source

paraphrase[Funding and Competing interests]

Registered (1 ID: ClinicalTrials.gov). No reporting guideline cited.

Broken references and links

None found · partly checked

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

Nothing surfaced — but not everything feeding this category ran (missing: data/code link verification), so read this as a partial clean bill.

Checked 50 references by DOI: 50 verified.

Copyediting

6 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 6 minor suggestions below.

6 copyedit issues flagged: mostly typo, consistency, clarity.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

1.
HIGHreporting
In the Data availability statement, specify a concrete access mechanism (e.g., a data access committee, a repository like Zenodo, or a managed-access platform) and the conditions/timeframe for requesting data, and complete the truncated sentence.
The current statement is vague and truncated, which is a reporting gap that limits reproducibility and transparency.
2.
HIGHcopyedit
In the Discussion, Policy implications section, correct the recurrent angina rate in the conventional group from 8.2% to 8.4% to match Table 3 and the Results section.
The internal inconsistency (8.2% vs 8.4%) is a factual error that could confuse readers and undermine trust in the reported outcomes.
3.
MEDIUMreporting
Add an explicit statement referencing the CONSORT reporting guideline (e.g., 'This report follows the CONSORT statement') in the Methods or a dedicated section.
Explicitly stating adherence to CONSORT improves reporting transparency and is expected for a clinical trial.
4.
MEDIUMdata code
Consider depositing the statistical analysis code (e.g., SAS and R scripts) in a public repository with a DOI, even if the patient-level data are not publicly available.
Sharing analysis code enhances reproducibility and is a low-cost way to strengthen the data/code availability.
5.
MEDIUMcopyedit
In the Abstract, Results, add a space before the minus sign in 'absolute risk difference−3.2%' to read 'absolute risk difference −3.2%'.
The missing space is a minor typographical error that affects readability.
6.
LOWcopyedit
In the Methods, Statistical analysis, rephrase 'We performed this initial calculation under the assumption of independent samples at the patient and vessel level' to 'We performed this initial calculation assuming independent samples at the patient and vessel level'.
The original phrasing is grammatically awkward and can be clarified.
7.
LOWreporting
In the Discussion, add a brief note on the generalizability of findings to non-Chinese populations, given the single-country setting.
This contextualizes the conclusions and addresses a potential limitation for international readers.

Full text (53,091 chars)Analyzed: Aug 15, 2026