SynthesisPloS one2013
Efficacy and safety of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents: 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. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparison of the main outcomes from BP-BES and DP-DES at five years of follow-up: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Comparison of long-term clinical outcomes of bioabsorbable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2024Review
- Novel Fabrication of MicroRNA Nanoparticle-Coated Coronary Stent for Prevention of Post-Angioplasty Restenosis.Korean circulation journal · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsDrug-eluting stents (DES) with biodegradable polymers have been developed to address the risk of thrombosis associated with first-generation DES. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BES) versus durable polymer DES.
methodsSystematic database searches of MEDLINE (1950 to June 2013), EMBASE (1966 to June 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 6 of 12, June 2013), and a review of related literature were conducted. All randomized controlled trials comparing biodegradable polymer BES versus durable polymer DES were included.
resultsEight randomized controlled trials investigating 11,015 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions were included in the meta-analysis. The risk of major adverse cardiac events did not differ significantly between the patients treated with the biodegradable polymer BES and the durable polymer DES (Relative risk [RR], 0.970; 95% CI, 0.848-1.111; p = 0.662). However, biodegradable polymer BES was associated with reduced risk of very late ST compared with the durable polymer DES, while the risk of early or late ST was similar (RR for early or late ST, 1.167; 95% CI 0.755-1.802; p = 0.487; RR 0.273; 95% CI 0.115-0.652; p = 0.003; p for interaction = 0.003).
conclusionsIn this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, treatments with biodegradable polymer BES did not significantly reduce the risk of major adverse cardiac events, but demonstrated a significantly lower risk of very late ST when compared to durable polymer DES. This conclusion requires confirmation by further studies with long-term follow-up. PROSPERO REGISTER NUMBER: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42013004364#.UnM2lfmsj6J.
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.