SynthesisPloS one2013
Intracoronary versus intravenous administration of abciximab in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAbciximab is a widely used adjunctive therapy for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, the effect of intracoronary (i.c.) administration of abciximab on cardiovascular events remains unclear when compared with intravenous (i.v.) therapy. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL
findingsWe systematically searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases and reference lists of articles and proceedings of major meetings for obtaining relevant literature. All eligible trials included ACS patients who received either i.c. administration of abciximab or i.v. therapy. The primary outcome was major cardiovascular events, and secondary outcomes included total mortality, reinfarction, and any possible adverse events. Of 660 identified studies, we included 9 trials reporting data on 3916 ACS patients. Overall, i.c. administration of abciximab resulted in 45% reduction in relative risk for major cardiovascular events (RR; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24-60%), 41% reduction in RR for reinfarction (95% CI, 7-63%), and 44% reduction in RR for congestive heart failure relative to i.v. therapy (95% CI, 8-66%); however, compared to i.v. therapy, i.c. administration of abciximab had no effect on total mortality (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.45-1.07). No other significant differences were identified between the effect of i.c. abciximab administration and i.v. therapy. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: I.c. administration of abciximab can reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events, reinfarction, and congestive heart failure when compared with i.v. therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.