Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38371071›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Long-Term Outcomes of Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Dilip K Vankayalapati, Omotayo Segun-Omosehin, Nour El Ghazal, Rohan Suresh Daniel, Joe El Haddad, Rania Mansour, Nathanael Yap, Shahid Miangul, Hayato Nakanishi, Christian A Than

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. What Are SAVR Indications in the TAVI Era?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    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

10 authors.

Dilip K VankayalapatiGeneral Surgery, Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, Buckinghamshire, GBR.
Omotayo Segun-OmosehinCardiothoracic Surgery, St George's University of London, London, GBR.
Nour El GhazalCardiothoracic Surgery, St George's University of London, London, GBR.
Rohan Suresh DanielCardiothoracic Surgery, St George's University of London, London, GBR.
Joe El HaddadCardiothoracic Surgery, St George's University of London, London, GBR.
Rania MansourCardiothoracic Surgery, St George's University of London, London, GBR.
Nathanael YapCardiothoracic Surgery, St George's University of London, London, GBR.
Shahid MiangulCardiothoracic Surgery, St George's University of London, London, GBR.
Hayato NakanishiCardiothoracic Surgery, St George's University of London, London, GBR.
Christian A ThanBiomedical Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, AUS.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of bioprosthetic (BV) versus mechanical valves (MV) on long-term outcomes in 50- to 70-year-old aortic stenosis (AS) patients. A literature search for articles published until April 2023 yielded 13 eligible studies, with 15,320 patients divided into BV (n = 7,320) and MV (n = 8,000) cohorts. The review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42021278777). MV demonstrated a favorable hazard ratio (HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.00-1.25, I

Indexed as

aortic stenosisbioprosthetic valvemechanical valvesurvivalvalve replacement

Identifiers

PMID38371071
PMCPMC10870098

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.