Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37144057›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2023

Is valve-sparing aortic root replacement better than total aortic root replacement? An overview of reviews.

Wei Wang, Xuezhou Zhang, Yong Shi, Siqi Xu, Teng Shi, Xiaotian Han, Tianxiang Gu, Enyi Shi

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Efficacy and safety of tai chi exercise on bone health: An umbrella review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wei WangDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Xuezhou ZhangDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Yong ShiDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Siqi XuDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Teng ShiDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Xiaotian HanDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Tianxiang GuDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Enyi ShiDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
China Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Total aortic root replacement (TRR) is certainly beneficial for aortic root disease, but does it still have an advantageous prognosis for patients compared to valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR)? An overview of reviews was conducted to assess each of their clinical efficacy/effectiveness. Review methods: Systematic reviews (SRs)/Meta-analyses comparing the prognosis of TRR and VSRR in aortic root surgery were collected from 4 databases, all searched from the time of database creation to October 2022. Two evaluators independently screened the literature, extracted information and applied the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) tool, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE), and Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) to evaluate the quality of reporting, methodological quality, risk of bias, and level of evidence of the included studies. Main results: A total of 9 SRs/Meta-analyses were ultimately included. In terms of the reporting quality of the included studies, PRISMA scores ranged from 14 to 22.5, with issues mainly in reporting bias assessment, risk of study bias, credibility of evidence, protocol and registration, and funding sources. The methodological quality of the included SRs/Meta-analyses was generally low, with key items 2, 7, and 13 having major flaws and non-key items 10, 12, and 16. In terms of risk of bias assessment, the overall assessment of the included 9 studies was high-risk. The quality of the evidence was rated as low to very low quality for the three outcome indicators selected for the GRADE quality of evidence rating: early (within 30 days postoperatively or during hospitalization) mortality, late mortality, and valve reintervention rate. Conclusions: VSRR has many benefits including reduced early and late mortality after aortic root surgery and reduced rates of valve-related adverse events, but the methodological quality of the relevant studies is low, and there is a lack of high-quality evidence to support this. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42022381330.

Indexed as

aortic surgeryoverview of reviewssystematic reviewstotal aortic root replacementvalve-sparing aortic root replacement

Identifiers

PMID37144057
PMCPMC10152366
OpenAlexW4366280998

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.