ArticleJournal of clinical medicine research2020
Gastrointestinal Bleeding as a Complication in Continuous Flow Ventricular Assist Devices: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine research, 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, 5 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of ventricular assist devices (VADs) has become predominant in this era of medicine. It is commonly used as a bridge to transplant, recovery and as a destination therapy for patients with severe heart failure, who are not responsive to maximum optimal management or ineligible for transplant. However, several complications are known to occur with the use of these devices. In this research, we will compare gastrointestinal bleeding in patients who used centrifugal flow versus axial flow VADs. We hope that the result of this meta-analysis and the review presented provide adequate information to future researchers, physicians and other healthcare professionals who are interested in this topic.
methodsPublished articles evaluated for inclusion were obtained from MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane, EBSCO, clinicaltrials.gov, and international clinical trials registry. This research was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Procured articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers. Only randomized control trials and observational studies were used. Quality assessment was done with Cochrane Collaboration's tool (RoB.2 with visualization through robviz) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Data analysis was carried out with the use of R data analysis tool (version 4.0.0; release date: April 24th, 2020).
resultsAt the end of this meta-analysis, the occurrence of gastrointestinal bleeding was not significantly different between both groups; with odds ratio (OR): 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65 - 1.00; P value = 0.05. Between-study variance (Tau-squared) was zero (0), standard error (SE) = 0.06. The degree of heterogeneity measured with I-squared statistic was 0% (minimal). Egger's regression test was not statistically significant, P = 0.93. Symmetry of distribution was observed on the funnel plot. Trim and fill analysis showed no missing studies on the left; SE = 1.68.
conclusionsThe result obtained from this research indicates that the occurrence of gastrointestinal bleeding is not significantly different in both groups of patients, irrespective of the type of continuous flow VAD used. Although, the study sample used in this meta-analysis was limited.
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.