Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36439998›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022

The efficacy and safety of different endovascular modalities for infrapopliteal arteries lesions: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Julong Guo, Yachan Ning, Hui Wang, Yu Li, Zhixiang Su, Fan Zhang, Sensen Wu, Lianrui Guo, Yongquan Gu

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Retrievable scaffold therapy before paclitaxel drug-coated balloon angioplasty in infrapopliteal arteries: one-year outcomes of the DEEPER OUS Study.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025
    Article
  4. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julong GuoDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yachan NingDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Hui WangDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yu LiDepartment of General Surgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Zhixiang SuDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Fan ZhangDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Sensen WuDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Lianrui GuoDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yongquan GuDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Capital Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Endovascular treatment has become the first-line therapy for infrapopliteal artery occlusive disease (IPOD), while the optimal endovascular method remains to be determined. We performed a network meta-analysis (NWM) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to simultaneously compare the outcomes of different endovascular modalities for IPOD. Methods and results: The Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were used as data sources. The NWM approach used random-effects models based on the frequentist framework. In total, 22 eligible RCTs (44 study arms; 1,348 patients) involving nine endovascular modalities or combinations [balloon angioplasty (BA), drug-coated balloon (DCB), drug-eluting stent (DES), atherectomy device + BA (AD + BA), AD + DCB, balloon-expandable bare metal stent (BMS), self-expanding stent (SES), absorbable metal stents (AMS), and inorganics-coated stent (ICS)] were included. BA had a lower 12-month primary patency rate than DCB (RR 0.50, CI 0.27, 0.93) and AD + DCB (RR 0.34, CI 0.12, 0.93). AD + DCB decreased 6-month TLR compared with AMS (RR 0.15, CI 0.03, 0.90), and DES decreased it compared with BMS (RR 0.25, CI 0.09, 0.71). DCB had a lower 6-month TLR rate than AMS (RR 0.26, CI 0.08, 0.86) and BA (RR 0.51, CI 0.30, 0.89). BA had a higher 12-month TLR rate than DCB (RR 1.76, CI 1.07, 2.90). According to the value of the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), AD + DCB was considered the best treatment in terms of primary patency at 6 months (SUCRA = 87.5) and 12 months (SURCA = 91). AD + BA was considered the best treatment in terms of 6-month TLR (SUCRA = 83.1), 12-month TLR (SURCA = 75.8), and 12-month all-cause mortality (SUCRA = 92.5). In terms of 12-month major amputation, DES was considered the best treatment (SUCRA = 78.6), while AD + DCB was considered the worst treatment (SUCRA = 28.8). Moreover, AD + BA always ranks higher than AD + DCB in the comparison including these two combinations. Subgroup analyses of modalities without stenting did not significantly change the primary outcomes. Conclusion: ADs showed noteworthy advantages in multiple terms for IPOD except for 12-month major amputation. AD + BA may be a better method for IPOD than AD + DCB. The efficacy and safety of ADs are worthy of further investigation. Systematic review registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42022331626].

Indexed as

chronic limb-threatening ischemiacritical limb ischemiaendovascular proceduresinfrapopliteal arterynetwork meta-analysisperipheral arterial disease

Identifiers

PMID36439998
PMCPMC9682151
OpenAlexW4308723869

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.