What is the evidence for an invasive strategy (angiography with intent to revascularise (with CABG or PCI)) versus medical therapy?
The evidence on mortality suggested a possible clinical harm of an invasive strategy, but the committee was not confident in this evidence due to the very wide confidence intervals around the absolute risk difference (which range from clinically important benefit to clinically important harm) and the risk of bias. An invasive strategy appeared not to have a clinically important impact on quality of life, but again, the committee placed little weight on this evidence due to its very low quality.