Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Investigation and management of stable angina: revised guidelines 1998
  1. D de Bono for the Joint Working Party of the British Cardiac Society and Royal College of Physicians of London
  1. Dr D de Bono, British Cardiac Society, 9 Fitzroy Square, London W1P 5AH, UK.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

In October 1991 the joint audit committee of the British Cardiac Society and the Royal College of Physicians of London set up a working group to review present practices in the investigation and management of angina and to identify potential audit issues in the care of patients presenting with this complaint. The findings of the working group were published as a summary in 1993 and in the form of a monograph in 1994.1 ,2 The present document represents the first revision of these guidelines. The need for revision was driven by three factors: first, progress in our understanding of the epidemiology, pathology, and treatment of angina; second, continuing developments in the methodology and format of guidelines; and third, a reappraisal of the target of the guidelines in the light of developments in medical practice.


The original guidelines were drawn up by a working party selected to contain representatives of a wide variety of different cardiological practices, general practice, academic cardiology and epidemiology, and with advice from patient groups and purchaser representatives. Members were asked to prepare monographs on particular topics based both on their own experience and on a review of the literature. The monographs were then discussed in committee and a consensus synthesis of guidelines undertaken. For the processes of revision a working group representative of a similarly wide spectrum of experience was identified and asked: (1) to review the existing guidelines; (2) suggest corrections and amendments; (3) identify new data in the form of original papers, new guidelines or systematic reviews; and (4) attend a meeting to discuss the relative priorities and nature of amendments. The working group also took specific account of: feedback collected since the publication of the original guidelines; systematic reviews and guidelines published since that date, in particular the guidelines on primary …

View Full Text


  • A list of the participants in the revision workshop and those who contributed written comments is given at the end of the paper