Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29623167›Full record

ReviewMethodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal

Current Indications for Stenting: Symptoms or Survival

Suzanne V Arnold

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Suzanne V ArnoldSAINT LUKE'S MID AMERICA HEART INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The major goals of treating ischemic heart disease are to reduce angina, improve quality of life, and ultimately reduce mortality. While medical therapy can effectively address these aims, there is still much research and debate about the role of percutaneous coronary intervention in the treatment spectrum-specifically, whether or not stenting prolongs life or simply treats symptoms without impacting survival. The data supporting revascularization for survival benefit came from patients who underwent bypass graft surgery prior to the introduction of effective medical management. Although both physicians and patients continue to believe in the life-saving ability of coronary stenting, little data exist to support this belief outside of when used during an acute myocardial infarction. Strategy trials designed to test the benefit of coronary stenting have limitations that have curbed physicians' willingness to accept the results, but they provide the best evidence for how to optimally manage these patients. In this article, we explore the data supporting the use of coronary stenting for various indications and the questions that remain to be answered.

Indexed as

StentsClinical Decision-MakingCoronary Artery DiseaseEvidence-Based MedicineHumansMyocardial InfarctionPatient SelectionPercutaneous Coronary InterventionQuality of LifeRecovery of FunctionRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTreatment Outcomeanginacoronary artery diseasecoronary stentingischemic heart diseasepercutaneous coronary interventionrevascularization

Identifiers

PMID29623167
PMCPMC5880567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.