ArticleBMJ open2023
Comparative effects of off-pump and multiple cardiopulmonary bypass strategies in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Trends Analysis and Scoping Review: Minimal Invasive Extracorporeal Circulation.Cardiovascular engineering and technology · 2026Review
- Long-Term Survival and Mortality Predictors of Off-Pump vs On-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A 25-Year Cohort Study.Annals of thoracic surgery short reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMultiple revascularisation strategies with or without cardiac arrest have been developed to minimise the negative effects of cardiopulmonary bypass interventions during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. Several observational and randomised studies have evaluated the efficacy of these interventions. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of four prevalent revascularisation strategies with/without cardiopulmonary bypass interventions in CABG surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomised controlled trials and observational cohort studies comparing outcomes of CABG surgery under conventional on-pump, off-pump, on-pump beating heart and minimal extracorporeal circulation technology. All English articles published before 30 November 2022 will be considered. The primary outcome will be 30-day mortality. The secondary outcomes will be various early and late adverse events after CABG surgery. The Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale will be used to assess the quality of included articles. A random-effects pairwise meta-analysis will be performed to report the head-to-head comparison. Then, the network meta-analysis will be performed using a Bayesian framework with random-effects models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This research does not require the approval of an ethics committee as it relies on reviewing literature and does not involve dealing with humans or animals. The findings of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023381279.
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.