Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving publication content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

This study suggested that co-Q10 has the potential to be clinically effective but concerns about the evidence base mean that a new trial is warranted.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index > metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Lindsay Claxton 1, Mark Simmonds 1, Lucy Beresford 1, Richard Cubbon 2, Mark Dayer 3, Stephen S Gottlieb 4, Nick Hartshorne-Evans 5, Bruce Kilroy 6, Alexis Llewellyn 1, Claire Rothery 7, Sahar Sharif 1, Jayne F Tierney 8, Klaus K Witte 9, Kath Wright 1, Lesley A Stewart 1,*

1 Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK
2 Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
3 Department of Cardiology, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
4 School of Medicine, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA
5 The Pumping Marvellous Foundation, Preston, UK
6 , Harrogate, UK
7 Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
8 Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK
9 School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
* Corresponding author Email: Lesley.stewart@york.ac.uk

Declared competing interests of authors: Richard Cubbon and Klaus K Witte have contributed to the ‘West Yorkshire’ database. Mark Dayer reports personal fees from Biotronik UK (Bicester, UK) outside the submitted work. Stephen S Gottlieb and Klaus K Witte were both principal investigators in one of the trials included in this systematic review.

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation:{{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al. ' : ''}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

An error has occurred in processing the XML document