Trial reportComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2022
Efficacy and Safety of Minimally Invasive Transcatheter Closure of Congenital Heart Disease under the Guidance of Transesophageal Ultrasound: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. 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.
- Retracted: Efficacy and Safety of Minimally Invasive Transcatheter Closure of Congenital Heart Disease under the Guidance of Transesophageal Ultrasound: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-09-27Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Paper Mill · Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions · · See also: https://pubpeer.com/publications/A51BA55F496C0C956C5C9119480511
- Retracted
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the efficacy of minimally invasive transcatheter closure of congenital heart disease (CHD) under the guidance of transesophageal ultrasound. Methods: A total of 100 patients with CHD treated in our hospital from February 2019 to April 2020 were enrolled in the group. The patients were randomly divided into control group and research group. The control group received minimally invasive transcatheter closure under the guidance of X-ray, and the research group received minimally invasive transcatheter closure under the guidance of transesophageal ultrasound. The operative results, the intraoperative- and postoperative-related indexes, and the incidence of early postoperative complications and follow-up results were compared. Results: First of all, we compared the results of the two groups: 48 cases of success, 2 cases of difficulty in the research group, 35 cases of success, 11 cases of difficulty, and 4 cases of failure in the control group. The success rate in the research group was higher than that in the control group ( Conclusion: Minimally invasive transcatheter closure of CHD under the guidance of transesophageal ultrasound has the advantages of less trauma, less blood loss, short hospital stay, simple operation, less postoperative complications, and remarkable therapeutic effect. Minimally invasive transcatheter closure under the guidance of transesophageal ultrasound has the advantage of adapting to a wide range of syndromes and can be used for the closure of CHD in children. According to different types of CHD, registering the corresponding occlusive pathway can improve the success rate of operation. Through postoperative reexamination and regular follow-up, it is proved that minimally invasive transcatheter closure under the guidance of transesophageal ultrasound is safe, effective, and feasible.
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.