SynthesisMedicine2016
Magnetic navigation system for percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- In vitro fenestrated endovascular aortic repair deployment and cannulation using an electromagnetically steerable guide wire.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2026Article
- In vitro renal artery stenting using a steerable guide wire navigated by a mobile electromagnetic field.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMagnetic navigation system (MNS) allows calculation of the vessel coordinates in real space within the patient's chest for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, its impact on the procedural parameters and clinical outcomes is still a matter of debate. To derive a more precise estimation of the relationship, a meta-analysis was performed. METHODS AND
resultsStudies exploring the advantages of MNS were identified in English-language articles by search of Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library Databases (inception to October 2015). A standardized protocol was used to extract details on study design, region origin, demographic data, lesion type, and clinical outcomes. The main outcome measures were contrast consumption, procedural success rate, contrast used for wire crossing, procedure time to cross the lesions, and the fluoroscopy time fluoroscopy time. A total of 12 clinical trials involving 2174 patients were included for analysis (902 patients in the magnetic PCI group and 1272 in the conventional PCI group). Overall, contrast consumption was decreased by 40.45 mL (95% confidence interval [CI] -70.98 to -9.92, P = 0.009) in magnetic PCI group compared with control group. In addition, magnetic PCI was associated with significantly decreasing procedural time by 2.17 minutes (95% CI -3.91 to -0.44, P = 0.01) and the total fluoroscopy time was significantly decreased by 1.43 minutes (95% CI -2.29 to -0.57, P = 0.001) in magnetic PCI group. However, procedural success rate, contrast used for wire crossing, procedure time to cross the lesions, and the fluoroscopy time to cross the lesions demonstrated that no statistically difference was observed between 2 groups.
conclusionThe present meta-analysis indicated an improvement of overall contrast consumption, total procedural time, and fluoroscopy time in magnetic PCI group. However, no significant advantages were observed associated with procedural success rate.
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.