Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36079071›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022

Evaluation of the Relationship between Left Coronary Artery Bifurcation Angle and Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review.

Jade Geerlings-Batt, Zhonghua Sun

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jade Geerlings-BattDiscipline of Medical Radiation Science, Curtin Medical School, Curtin University, Perth, WA 6845, Australia.
Zhonghua SunDiscipline of Medical Radiation Science, Curtin Medical School, Curtin University, Perth, WA 6845, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7538-4761

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent studies have suggested a relationship between wide left coronary artery bifurcation (left anterior descending [LAD]-left circumflex [LCx]) angle and coronary artery disease (CAD). Current literature is multifaceted. Different studies have analysed this relationship using computational fluid dynamics, by considering CAD risk factors, and from simple causal-comparative and correlational perspectives. Hence, the purpose of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the current literature and determine whether there is sufficient evidence available to prove the relationship between LAD-LCx angle and CAD. Five electronic databases (ProQuest, Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, and Emcare) were used to locate relevant texts, which were then screened according to predefined eligibility criteria. Thirteen eligible articles were selected for review. Current evidence suggests individuals with a wide LAD-LCx angle experience altered haemodynamics at the bifurcation site compared to those with narrower angles, which likely facilitates a predisposition to developing CAD. However, further research is required to determine causality regarding relationships between LAD-LCx angle and CAD risk factors. Insufficient valid evidence exists to support associations between LAD-LCx angle and degree of coronary stenosis, and future haemodynamic analyses should explore more accurate coronary artery modelling, as well as CAD progression in already stenosed bifurcations.

Indexed as

atherosclerosiscoronary artery bifurcationcoronary artery diseasecoronary computed tomography angiographycoronary stenosis

Identifiers

PMID36079071
PMCPMC9457427

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.