ArticleCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2018
Drug-eluting balloons with provisional bail-out or adjunctive stenting in
Article in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drug coated balloons in percutaneous coronary intervention: how can computational modelling help inform evolving clinical practice?Frontiers in medical technology · 2025Review
- A 2024 scientific update on the clinical performance of drug-coated balloons.AsiaIntervention · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEfficacy of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) for treatment of
methodsA systematic literature search from January 2000 until May 2017 was conducted. Primary outcome measure, late lumen loss (LLL); and secondary outcomes; binary restenosis, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death and stent thrombosis were analysed.
resultsSeventeen RCTs were included with 2,616 patients. Several comparative groups showed significant differences. DEB with BMS were inferior to DES for LLL [mean difference (MD) =0.12 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.03 to 0.22; P=0.01]; and binary restenosis [risk ratio (RR) =1.89; (CI, 1.13 to 3.18); P=0.02]. DEB with BMS was superior to BMS for LLL [MD =-0.27 mm; (-0.45 to -0.10); P=0.002]; and MACE [RR =0.64; (0.46 to 0.90); P=0.010]. Finally, DEB alone was superior to POBA for LLL [MD =-0.39 mm; (-0.67 to -0.11); P=0.006] and binary restenosis [RR =0.20; (0.05 to 0.85); P=0.03] in bifurcation lesions.
conclusionsThe results of this meta-analysis showed that whilst DEB with BMS is superior to BMS alone, the combination is inferior to DES for treatment of
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.