Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35548423›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022

A Partially Randomized Patient Preference Trial to Assess the Quality of Life and Patency Rate After Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery-Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Design and Rationale of the MICS-CABG PRPP Trial.

Yichen Gong, Xiaoxiao Wang, Nan Li, Yuanhao Fu, Hui Zheng, Ye Zheng, Siyan Zhan, Yunpeng Ling

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Yichen GongDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xiaoxiao WangResearch Center of Clinical Epidemiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Nan LiResearch Center of Clinical Epidemiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yuanhao FuDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Hui ZhengDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Ye ZhengDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Siyan ZhanResearch Center of Clinical Epidemiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yunpeng LingDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive cardiac surgery-coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS-CABG) has emerged as a safe alternative to standard cardiac surgery. However, treatment preferences can decrease the generalizability of RCT results to the clinical population (i.e., reduce external validity) and influence adherence to the treatment protocol and study outcomes (i.e., reduce internal validity). However, this has not yet been properly investigated in randomized trials with consideration of treatment preferences. Study Design: In this study, patients with a preference will be allocated to treatment strategies accordingly, whereas only those patients without a distinct preference will be randomized. The randomized trial is a 248-patient controlled, randomized, investigator-blinded trial. It is designed to compare whether treatment with MICS-CABG is beneficial in comparison to CABG. This study is aimed to establish the superiority hypothesis for the physical component summary (PCS) accompanied by the non-inferiority hypothesis for overall graft patency. Patients with no treatment preference will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to one of the two treatment arms. The primary efficacy endpoints are the PCS score at 30 days after surgery and the overall patency rate of the grafts within 14 days after surgery. Secondary outcome measures include the PCS score and patency rate at different time points. Safety endpoints include major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, complications, bleeding, wound infection, death, etc. Conclusions: This trial will address essential questions of the efficacy and safety of MICS-CABG. The study will also address the impact of patients' preferences on external validity and internal validity.

Indexed as

MICS-CABGminimally invasivepatency ratepatients' preferencequality of lifeSF-36 scoresurgical procedurestrial

Identifiers

PMID35548423
PMCPMC9081498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.