ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Is Not Superior to Optimal Medical Therapy in Chronic Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive investigations for coronary artery disease in hypertensive patients: a meta-analysis.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2025Review
- Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in stable angina pectoris: a narrative review on current evidence and underlying physiological mechanisms.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2024Review
- Treatment Strategies for Chronic Coronary Heart Disease with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction or Preserved Ejection Fraction-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Pathophysiology : the official journal of the International Society for Pathophysiology · 2023Review
- Do collaterals to infarct bed in STE-ACS patients undergoing emergent percutaneous coronary revascularization matter? An assessment of a prospective pool for in-hospital course.Indian heart journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background and Aim: Conflicting evidence exists regarding the benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on survival and symptomatic relief of patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) compared with optimal medical therapy (OMT). This meta-analysis is to evaluate the short- and long-term clinical benefit of PCI over and above OMT in CCS. (2) Methods: Main endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), urgent revascularization, stroke hospitalization, and quality of life (QoL). Clinical endpoints at very short (≤3 months), short- (<12 months), and long-term (≥ 12 months) follow-up were evaluated. (3) Results: Fifteen RCTs with a total of 16,443 patients with CCS (PCI
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.