ArticleMedicine2021
Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent in acute myocardial infarction: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drug-Coated Balloon in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2023Review
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
backgroundPrevious studies comparing the published literature on drug-eluting stents (DES) and drug-coated balloon (DCB) have drawn divergent conclusions, as these studies are limited by small sample sizes. To overcome these limitations, we thus conducted a high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of DCB versus DES for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). It was hypothesized that DCB use at the AMI is associated with decreased risk of cardiovascular disease and death.
methodsThe electronic databases Embase, Medline, PubMed, and Cinahl were searched from the earliest available date until August 2021. Study included in our study had to meet all of the following inclusion criteria: all randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy and safety of DES versus DCB in the treatment of AMI were considered eligible for analysis; participants received DCB or DES; reporting the available data on cardiac death, all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, major adverse cardiac events, and stent thrombosis. Review Manager Software (v 5.3; Cochrane Collaboration) was used for the meta-analysis. Two of us independently assessed the risk of bias in the included studies using parameters defined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions criteria.
resultsIt was hypothesized that DCB use at the AMI is associated with decreased risk of cardiovascular disease and death. REGISTRATION NUMBER: 10.17605/OSF.IO/AVTYW.
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.