Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22885395›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2012

Outcomes with various drug eluting or bare metal stents in patients with diabetes mellitus: mixed treatment comparison analysis of 22,844 patient years of follow-up from randomised trials.

Sripal Bangalore, Sunil Kumar, Mario Fusaro, Nicholas Amoroso, Ajay J Kirtane, Robert A Byrne, David O Williams, James Slater, Donald E Cutlip, Frederick Feit

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
32.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 232 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents versus bare metal stents: Results from a patient level meta-analysis of randomized trials.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2017
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Guideline
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Sripal BangaloreNew York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, US. sripalbangalore@gmail.com
Sunil Kumar
Mario Fusaro
Nicholas Amoroso
Ajay J Kirtane
Robert A Byrne
David O Williams
James Slater
Donald E Cutlip
Frederick Feit
University School · USNew York University · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USNew York Hospital Queens · USUniversity of Nebraska at Omaha · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of currently used drug eluting stents compared with each other and compared with bare metal stents in patients with diabetes.

designMixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched for randomised clinical trials, until April 2012, of four durable polymer drug eluting stents (sirolimus eluting stents, paclitaxel eluting stents, everolimus eluting stents, and zotarolimus eluting stents) compared with each other or with bare metal stents for the treatment of de novo coronary lesions and enrolling at least 50 patients with diabetes. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Efficacy (target vessel revascularisation) and safety (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis).

resultsFrom 42 trials with 22,844 patient years of follow-up, when compared with bare metal stents (reference rate ratio 1) all of the currently used drug eluting stents were associated with a significant reduction in target vessel revascularisation (37% to 69%), though the efficacy varied with the type of stent (everolimus eluting stents~sirolimus eluting stents>paclitaxel eluting stents~zotarolimus eluting stent>bare metal stents). There was about an 87% probability that everolimus eluting stents were the most efficacious compared with all others, though there were limited usable data for the zotarolimus eluting Resolute stent in patients with diabetes. Moreover, there was no increased risk of any safety outcome (including very late stent thrombosis) with any drug eluting stents compared with bare metal stents. There was about a 62% probability that the everolimus eluting stent was the safest stent for the outcome of "any" stent thrombosis.

conclusionsAmong patients with diabetes treated with coronary stents all currently available drug eluting stents were efficacious without compromising safety compared with bare metal stents. There were relative differences among the drug eluting stents, such that the everolimus eluting stent was the most efficacious and safe.

Indexed as

Drug-Eluting StentsStentsAngioplasty, Balloon, CoronaryBayes TheoremCoronary DiseaseDiabetes ComplicationsFollow-Up StudiesHumansPaclitaxelRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSirolimusTreatment OutcomePaclitaxelSirolimus

Identifiers

PMID22885395
PMCPMC3415955
OpenAlexW2037298051

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.