ReviewKorean circulation journal2017
Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Korean Expert Panel Report.
Review in Korean circulation journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and Efficacy of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Real-World Practice.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors at 17 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BRS) is an innovative device that provides structural support and drug release to prevent early recoil or restenosis, and then degrades into nontoxic compounds to avoid late complications related with metallic drug-eluting stents (DESs). BRS has several putative advantages. However, recent randomized trials and registry studies raised clinical concerns about the safety and efficacy of first generation BRS. In addition, the general guidance for the optimal practice with BRS has not been suggested due to limited long-term clinical data in Korea. To address the safety and efficacy of BRS, we reviewed the clinical evidence of BRS implantation, and suggested the appropriate criteria for patient and lesion selection, scaffold implantation technique, and management.
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.