Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36451921›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022

Clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for

Wen-Rui Ma, Karthik H Chandrasekharan, Chang-Sheng Nai, Yong-Xiang Zhu, Javaid Iqbal, Shang Chang, You-Wei Cheng, Xin-Yu Wang, Christos V Bourantas, Yao-Jun Zhang

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Wen-Rui MaDepartment of Cardiology, Xuzhou Third People's Hospital, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Karthik H ChandrasekharanDepartment of Cardiology, Barts Heart Centre, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Chang-Sheng NaiDepartment of Cardiology, Xuzhou Third People's Hospital, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Yong-Xiang ZhuDepartment of Cardiology, Xuzhou Third People's Hospital, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Javaid IqbalDepartment of Cardiology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Shang ChangDepartment of Cardiology, Xuzhou Third People's Hospital, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
You-Wei ChengDepartment of Cardiology, Xuzhou Third People's Hospital, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Xin-Yu WangDepartment of Cardiology, Xuzhou Third People's Hospital, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Christos V BourantasDepartment of Cardiology, Barts Heart Centre, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Yao-Jun ZhangDepartment of Cardiology, Xuzhou Third People's Hospital, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Jiangsu University · CNBarts Health NHS Trust · GBXuzhou Cancer Hospital · CNXuzhou Medical College · CNSheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has a well-established role in revascularization for coronary artery disease. We performed network meta-analysis to provide evidence on optimal intervention strategies for Materials and methods: Enrolled studies were randomized clinical trials that compared different intervention strategies [balloon angioplasty (BA), biolimus-coated balloon (BCB), bare-metal stent (BMS), new-generation drug-eluting stent (New-DES), older generation sirolimus-eluting stent (Old-SES), paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB), and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES)] for Results: A total of 23 randomized clinical trials comparing seven intervention devices were analyzed. In terms of the primary outcome, New-DES was the intervention device with the best efficacy [surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), 89.1%; mean rank, 1.7], and the Old-SES [risk ratio (RR), 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45-2.64] and PCB (RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.72-2.74) secondary to New-DES, but there was no statistically significant difference between these three intervention devices. All DES and PCB were superior to BMS and BA for MACE in both primary and sensitivity analysis. For secondary outcomes, there was no association between all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) with any intervention strategy, and additionally, the findings of target lesion revascularization (TLR) were similar to the primary outcomes. Conclusion: Paclitaxel-coated balloon yielded similar outcomes to New-DES for Systematic review registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails], identifier [CRD42022338433].

Indexed as

clinical outcomede novo lesionsdrug-coated balloonnew-generation drug-eluting stentsmall coronary arteries

Identifiers

PMID36451921
PMCPMC9702822
OpenAlexW4309039954

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.