SynthesisInternal and emergency medicine2016
Paclitaxel-eluting stents versus sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Internal and emergency medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 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
- Drug Coated Balloon in the Treatment of De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Cordycepin ameliorates cardiac hypertrophy via activating the AMPKα pathway.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Uncertainties exist with regard to the efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) versus sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in diabetes patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the outcome of PES versus SES in diabetes patients undergoing PCI. A literature search was started, and we found all studies conducted from 2005 to 2016. We systematically searched the literature through the MEDLINE, Cochrane library, and EMBASE. Quality assessments were evaluated with the Jadad scale. Data were extracted considering the characteristics of efficacy and the safety of the designs. 12 RCTs satisfy the inclusion criteria. There is a significant decrease of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (MD = 0.65, 95 % CI = 0.42-1.00, P = 0.05) in a year and more than 1 year (MD = 0.54, 95 % CI = 0.37-0.78, P = 0.00010). A significant decrease of target vessel revascularization (TVR) in more than 1 year is (MD = 0.62, 95 % CI = 0.47-0.81, P = 0.0004). A significant decrease of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in more than 1 year is (MD = 0.73, 95 % CI = 0.60-0.89, P = 0.002). Nevertheless, there is no significant difference in mortality (MD = 0.85, 95 % CI = 0.66-1.11, P = 0.24), stent thrombosis (ST) (MD = 0.65, 95 % CI = 0.35-1.21, P = 0.18), or myocardial infarction (MD = 1.04, 95 % CI = 0.71-1.51, P = 0.84). SES may be more significant in decreasing TLR, TVR, and MACE than PES without significantly increasing mortality, ST and MI in diabetes patients.
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.