SynthesisMedicine2019
Comparison of clinical outcomes between intravascular optical coherence tomography-guided and angiography-guided stent implantation: A meta-analysis of randomized control trials and systematic review.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of intravascular ultrasound, optical coherence tomography, and conventional angiography-guided percutaneous coronary interventions: A systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2019-09-01Error in Analyses · Error in Data · Error in Methods · Error in Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review was designed to evaluate the overall efficacy of optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided implantation versus angiography-guided for percutaneous coronary intervention.
methodsThe following electronic databases, such as CENTRAL, PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE were searched for systematic reviews to investigate OCT-guided and angiography-guided implantation. We measured the following 7 parameters in each patient: stent thrombosis, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), all-cause death.
resultsIn all, 11 studies (6 RCTs and 5 observational studies) involving 4026 subjects were included, with 1903 receiving intravascular ultrasound-guided drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation and 2123 using angiography-guided DES implantation. With regard to MACE, MT, TLR, TVR, stent thrombosis and all-cause death, the group of OCT-guided implantation had no significant statistical association with remarkably improved clinical outcomes. However, its effect on cardiovascular death has a significant statistical difference in angiography-guided implantation group.
conclusionIn the present pool analysis, OCT-guided DES implantation showed a tendency toward improved clinical outcomes compared to angiography-guided implantation. More eligible randomized clinical trials are warranted to verify the findings and to determine the beneficial effect of OCT-guidance for patients.
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.