ReviewClinical epidemiology2020
Remote Ischemic Conditioning in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.
Review in Clinical epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) as compared to no conditioning on clinical endpoints in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
designSystematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). MATERIAL AND
methodsLiterature was searched up to September 13, 2019, and we identified a total of 13 RCTs. The efficacy of RIC on incidence of clinical events during follow-up was quantified by the rate ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI), and we used fixed and random effects models to synthetize the results. Small-study effect was evaluated, and controlled for by the trim-and-fill method. Heterogeneity between studies was examined by subgroup and meta-regression analyses. The risk of false-positive results in meta-analysis was evaluated by trial sequential analysis (TSA).
resultsPooled analysis of 13 trials (7183 patients) showed that RIC compared to no conditioning revealed a non-significant risk reduction on endpoint mortality (RR=0.81, 95% CI: 0.56-1.17) during a median follow-up time of 1 year (range: 0.08-3.8) with low heterogeneity (I
conclusionEvidence from this updated systematic review demonstrates no beneficial effect of RIC on the incidence of clinical endpoint mortality, MI and CHF during a median follow-up of 1 year in ACS patients undergoing PCI.
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.