ReviewPatient preference and adherence2019
Patients' preferences for coronary revascularization: a systematic review.
Review in Patient preference and adherence, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing revascularization in the high-risk heart: Impella™-facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention in multivessel coronary artery disease with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and mitral regurgitation.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Optimizing protected PCI strategies in the setting of chronic kidney disease and advanced coronary artery disease: a clinical case-based discussion.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Patient selection for complex, high-risk indicated percutaneous coronary intervention procedures: an overview.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Assessment of Revascularization Preferences With Best-Worst Scaling Among Patients With Ischemic Heart Disease.Journal of cardiac failure · 2025Article
- Nurse-led intervention in the management of patients with cardiovascular diseases: a brief literature review.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- Methods to Summarize Discrete-Choice Experiments in a Systematic Review: A Scoping Review.The patient · 2022Article
- Patients' Preferences after Recurrent Coronary Narrowing: Discrete Choice Experiments.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2020Article
- Trends in Guideline-Driven Revascularization in Diabetic Patients with Multivessel Coronary Heart Disease.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsCurrent recommendations regarding the best treatment option for coronary revascularization are usually based on composite outcomes that were not selected or weighed with patients thence they may fail in representing patients' preferences adequately. This systematic review aimed to appraise existing literature surrounding stated preference (SP) regarding coronary revascularization. METHODS AND
resultsStudies related to SP regarding coronary revascularization were searched on Medline, Embase and Lilacs databases. Two reviewers screened all titles independently, and consensus resolved any disagreements. Of 735 total citations, six studies were included and qualitatively synthesized. Notably, the attributes most often cited in these studies coincided with those already used in clinical trials (death, myocardial infarction, stroke and redo revascularization). Half of the studies analyzed the use of composite endpoints and showed the necessity to review this practice since the attributes are weighed differently, and there is a disagreement between patients and physicians. Also, a large variety of methods were used to elicitate and value the attributes such as rating, ranking, standard gamble, willingness to pay, and discrete choice experiments.
conclusionDespite a large number of studies comparing revascularization treatment efficacy, there are just a few focusing on patients' preferences. The selection of outcomes to be considered in the trade-off between treatment options and how to weigh them properly, taking into consideration patients' preferences, need to be explored in future trials.
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.