ArticleMedicine2020
Long-term outcomes of single stenting compared with double stenting strategy for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal interventions for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease have long been debated, and long-term clinical studies comparing single stenting to double stenting strategies for ULMCA are currently lacking.
methodsWe plan to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing single stenting with double stents strategy for ULMCA disease. We will search PubMed, EMBASE, Web of science and Cochrane Library using a comprehensive strategy. The related conference proceedings and reference lists of the included studies will also be checked to identify additional studies. Two reviewers will screen retrieved records, extract information and assess the risk of bias independently. STATA software will be used to conduct data synthesis. There is no requirement of ethical approval and informed consent.
resultsThis study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.
conclusionWe hope it will provide a relatively comprehensive reference for clinical practice and future relevant clinical trials. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval and patient consent are not required, as this study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. INPLASY REGISTRATION NUMBER: INPLASY2020110030.
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.