Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32468141›Full record

SynthesisHerz2021

Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent for treating de novo coronary lesions in large vessels: a meta-analysis of clinical trials.

Yaowang Lin, Xin Sun, Huadong Liu, Xinli Pang, Shaohong Dong

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Herz, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Drug-Coated Balloon vs. Stent forFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yaowang LinDepartment of Cardiology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Second Clinical Medical College of Jinan University, first affiliated Hospital of South University of Science and Technology, No. 1017, Dongmen Northern Road, 518020, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4075-4259
Xin SunDepartment of Cardiology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Second Clinical Medical College of Jinan University, first affiliated Hospital of South University of Science and Technology, No. 1017, Dongmen Northern Road, 518020, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Huadong LiuDepartment of Cardiology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Second Clinical Medical College of Jinan University, first affiliated Hospital of South University of Science and Technology, No. 1017, Dongmen Northern Road, 518020, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Xinli PangDepartment of Cardiology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Second Clinical Medical College of Jinan University, first affiliated Hospital of South University of Science and Technology, No. 1017, Dongmen Northern Road, 518020, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Shaohong DongDepartment of Cardiology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Second Clinical Medical College of Jinan University, first affiliated Hospital of South University of Science and Technology, No. 1017, Dongmen Northern Road, 518020, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China. xnkdsh@yeah.net.
Jinan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies examining the efficiency of drug-coated balloon (DCB) compared to drug-eluting stents (DES) for de novo lesions in large vessels have reported inconsistent results.

objectiveThis comprehensive meta-analysis of clinical trials compared the efficacy and safety of DCB and DES for the treatment of de novo coronary lesions.

methodsThe authors formally searched electronic databases before October 2019 to identify randomized and non-randomized clinical trials (RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively). Clinical trials were eligible for inclusion if they compared DCB with DES in patients with coronary lumen diameters >2.5 mm.

resultsThree RCTs and one non-RCT with a total of 321 patients were included in our meta-analysis (DCB group = 152, DES group = 169). The primary endpoint was in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -0.07 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.31, 0.316; P = 0.548) and the secondary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR) with a risk ratio (RR) of 1.17 (95% CI: 0.46, 2.95; P = 0.746).

conclusionThis meta-analysis indicated that DCB might be non-inferior to DES as evidenced by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) assessed at 6-9 months after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients presenting with coronary artery disease.

Indexed as

Angioplasty, Balloon, CoronaryCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary RestenosisDrug-Eluting StentsPharmaceutical PreparationsCoronary AngiographyCoronary VesselsHumansProsthesis DesignTreatment OutcomePharmaceutical PreparationsCoronary stenosisDCBDe novo lesionDESPercutaneous coronary intervention

Identifiers

PMID32468141
OpenAlexW3030375939

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.