ArticleHeliyon2023
Efficacy and risks of drug-coated balloon treatment for coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Coronary artery disease (CAD) often leads to myocardial ischemia and impaired cardiac function, significantly impacting the well-being and quality of life (QOL) of individuals. The use of drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment has become a widespread approach in CAD management. However, currently, there is limited evidence available for the meta-analysis of DCB treatment in CAD. Materials and methods: A systematic search was conducted across databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and VIP Database, covering data from the inception of each database up to April 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding DCB treatment were meticulously chosen based on independent assessment of eligibility and scope by three researchers. Literature screening and data extraction were independently performed by two researchers, while methodological quality of the enrolled studies was assessed using the risk of bias (ROB) tool developed by the Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3. Results: Following the screening process, seven studies were included. Four studies demonstrated an odds ratio (OR) of 0.66 for target lesion revascularization (TLR), five reported an OR of 0.41 for postoperative myocardial infarction (MI), four indicated a mean difference (MD) of 6.03 in the degree of stenosis (DOS), five exhibited an MD of 0.13 for late lumen loss (LLL), five reported an OR of 0.33 for cardiac death, and two presented an OR of 1.01 for binary restenosis (BR). Conclusion: DCB demonstrated a comparable efficacy to drug-eluting stents (DES) in treating CAD, with relatively lower associated risks.
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.