Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17347687›Full record

ReviewThe Canadian journal of cardiology2007

The life and hard times of a coronary surgeon.

Bernard S Goldman

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Canadian journal of cardiology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bernard S GoldmanSunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario. bernard.goldman@sunnybrook.ca
Sunnybrook Health Science Centre · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coronary artery bypass is arguably the most extensively studied operation in surgical history. The technical advances and beneficial effects on symptoms and prognosis have been well documented over four decades. Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) have also evolved through numerous modifications, and symptom relief has been substantiated; both modalities have been challenged by many randomized controlled trials. The rapid growth of PCIs has decreased coronary artery bypass volumes, and resulted in concerns about training, teaching, research, jobs and income. The most important concern, however, is the increasing 'off-label' application of PCIs with drug-eluting stents to a variety of untested coronary lesions. The randomized controlled trials studied a small fraction of those registered and excluded patients who are known to benefit from surgery and, thus, these studies were inherently biased. The results were then extrapolated to 'real-world' patients, who had been misinformed and misled about the performance and prognosis of coronary stents, as was later revealed in various registries. Hospitals should develop a collaborative revascularization strategy to provide patients and families with realistic alternatives.

Indexed as

Angioplasty, Balloon, CoronaryCoated Materials, BiocompatibleCoronary Artery BypassCoronary Artery DiseaseHumansOntarioRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStentsCoated Materials, Biocompatible

Identifiers

PMID17347687
PMCPMC2647864
OpenAlexW1991867080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.