ReviewTexas Heart Institute journal2009
The comparative efficacy of percutaneous and surgical coronary revascularization in 2009: a review.
Review in Texas Heart Institute journal, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Facts and principles learned at the 39th Annual Williamsburg Conference on Heart Disease.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical, percutaneous, and surgical therapies for coronary atherosclerotic disease are developing rapidly, with many recent breakthroughs in metabolic control, improvements in catheter and stent engineering, and advances in surgical technique. Treatment guidelines are still in their infancy and do not take into account several of these recent innovations. Consequently, determining the most appropriate treatment for many patients remains challenging. In this review, we examine the most recent revascularization guidelines, discuss important new data and trials comparing contemporary stent technology and coronary artery bypass surgery, and conclude with updated revascularization recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19876412PMC2763449What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.