ArticleMedicine2020
Comparing efficacy of drug-coated balloon-only approach and stent approach in treating de novo coronary artery lesions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 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, 0 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDrug-coated balloons (DCB) have been a novel alternative therapeutic strategy in de novo coronary artery diseases. However, the clinical feasibility of the DCB-only approach in treating small vessel disease remains controversial, while study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the DCB-only approach versus stent approaches in treating large vessel disease is limited.
methodsFrom February 2020 to May 2020, we will search Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and Chongqing VIP Database for eligible trials comparing DCB with drug-eluting stents for treatment of de novo lesions in both small vessel disease and large vessel disease. The primary endpoint is major adverse cardiac events (MACE); the secondary endpoints include in-lesion late lumen loss, binary restenosis, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), mortality and target vessel thrombosis. Meta-analysis will be conducted using Review Manager software (V.5.3).
resultsThe results will be presented as risk ratios for dichotomous data, and weighted mean differences for continuous data.
conclusionWe will assess outcomes of the DCB-only approach in the treatment of de novo lesions compared with the stent approach. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020164484.
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.