ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2020
Quality of life in sexagenarians after aortic biological vs mechanical valve replacement: a single-center study in China.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Exploratory Cost-Effectiveness of a Novel Bioprosthetic Valve for Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Spain.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2025Article
- Quality of Life in Patients Aged 60-65 Years Receiving Mechanical versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement.Cardiac failure review · 2025Article
- Review
- Correction to: Quality of life in sexagenarians after aortic biological vs mechanical valve replacement: a single-center study in China.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis article aimed to study the quality of life and anxiety of sexagenarian patients who underwent aortic biological vs mechanical valve replacement in a single center in China.
methodsThe clinical data of 78 patients aged 60 to 70 years who underwent aortic prosthetic valve replacement were retrospectively analyzed in our hospital from June 2017 to February 2018. Patients were divided into two groups depending on the type of prosthetic valve they received (biological valve group vs mechanical valve group). The SF-36 was completed by all patients at discharge and at one-year follow-up, and the cardiac anxiety questionnaire (CAQ) was also completed at one-year follow-up.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in general clinical data or SF-36 score at discharge. However, at one-year follow-up, the SF-36 scores were significantly higher in the biological valve group than in the mechanical valve group, and the CAQ scores in fear and anxiety, avoidance and attention in the mechanical valve group were significantly higher than those in the biological valve group.
conclusionsBased on the postoperative quality of life and anxiety scores of sexagenarian patients who underwent biological vs mechanical valve replacement in this study, a biological valve has more value than a mechanical valve for sexagenarians undergoing aortic valve replacement.
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.