ReviewJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2023
Appropriateness of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of Indications for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Multicenter Analysis after the Diagnosis of Chronic Coronary Syndrome.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince the foundation of appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization, the proportion of inappropriate (later revised as "rarely inappropriate") percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) varied in different populations. However, the pooled inappropriate PCI rate remains unknown.
methodsWe searched the PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Sinomed databases for studies related to AUC and PCIs. Studies that reported inappropriate/rarely appropriate PCI rates were included. A random effects model was employed in the meta-analysis because of the high statistical heterogeneity.
resultsThirty-seven studies were included in our study, of which eight studies reported the appropriateness of acute PCIs or PCIs in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients, 25 studies reported the appropriateness of non-acute/elective PCIs or PCIs in non-ACS/stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) patients, and 15 studies reported both acute and non-acute PCIs or did not distinguish the urgency of PCI. The pooled inappropriate PCI rate was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.6-6.4%) in acute scenarios, 8.9% (95% CI: 6.7-11.0%) in non-acute scenarios, and 6.1% (95% CI: 4.9-7.3%) overall. The inappropriate/rarely appropriate PCI rate was significantly higher in non-acute than acute scenarios. No difference in the inappropriate PCI rate was detected based on the study location, the country's level of development, or the presence of chronic total occlusion (CTO).
conclusionsThe worldwide inappropriate PCI rate is generally identical but comparatively high, especially under non-acute scenarios.
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.