ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2017
Clinical results of biologic prosthesis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing decellularized vascular scaffolds with PVDF and PCL reinforcement: a fused deposition modeling approach.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Self-expandable tubular collagen implants.Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2018Article
- A new glaucoma drainage implant with the use of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). A pilot study.Romanian journal of ophthalmologyArticle
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBiologic prosthesis (BP) has been reported as a safe alternative to polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) in vascular reconstruction. However, efficacy of BP remains controversial. We, therefore, conducted a systematic review to summarize previous available evidences comparing the BP and PTFE in terms of clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsA literature search of the MEDLINE and Scopus was performed to identify comparative studies reporting outcomes of BP, PTFE, and/or autologous veins graft (VG) in vascular access for hemodialysis or femoropopliteal bypass. The outcome of interest was graft patency. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Meta-analysis with a random-effect model was applied to pool a risk ratio (RR) across studies.
resultsAmong 584 articles identified, 11 studies (4 randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 7 cohorts) comprising 2627 patients were eligible for pooling. Seven studies compared BP with PTFE and 3 studies compared PTFE with VG. Among BP vs PTFE, pooling based on 3 RCTs yielded the pooled RR of 1.54 (95% CI: 1.10, 2.16), indicating 54% higher graft patency in VG than PTFE. Adding the 7 cohorts in this pooling yield similar results with the pooled RR of 1.29 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.45). The pooled RR of graft patency for BP vs VG was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.55, 1.00), indicating 26% lower graft patency in BP than VG.
conclusionsOur first meta-analysis indicated that the biosynthetic prosthesis might be benefit over PTFE by increasing graft patency. An updated meta-analysis or a large scale randomized control trial is required to confirm this benefit.
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.