ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2016
Impact of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting on survival: current best available evidence.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Off-pump vs. on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with chronic kidney disease: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.International urology and nephrology · 2025Pooled it
- Comparing the Effectiveness of Open and Minimally Invasive Approaches in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Systematic Review.Clinics and practice · 2024Review
- Article
- Outcomes of urgent coronary artery bypass grafting in patients who have recently recovered from COVID-19 infection, with a median follow-up period of twelve months: our experience.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2022Article
- Postoperative Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio as an Overall Mortality Midterm Prognostic Factor following OPCAB Procedures.Clinics and practice · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The superiority of either off-pump (OPCAB) or on-pump (ONCAB) coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains unclear despite a large body of literature evidence comparing the two approaches. The potential advantages of avoiding cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), minimizing aortic manipulation and maintaining pulsatile flow may be associated with reduced inflammatory responses and embolic events. Numerous studies compared OPCAB with ONCAB and the cumulative data have been presented in meta-analyses of both randomized and observational studies. Although there is an abundance of data with respect to the operative morbidity and mortality and the short-term outcomes associated with these two strategies, not much is known about how they impact long-term survival and recurrence of myocardial ischaemic events. Recent studies and meta-analyses have focused on long-term survival and major secondary outcomes in OPCAB
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.