ArticleHeliyon2024
Percutaneous coronary intervention versus optimal medical therapy for stable coronary artery disease: An umbrella review.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- [¿Es realmente protectora la PCI protegida? Reflexiones críticas a partir de CHIP-BCIS3 y la evidencia previa].Archivos peruanos de cardiologia y cirugia cardiovascularArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Invasive management of stable coronary artery disease is still a controversial topic. The purpose of this umbrella review was to synthesize systematic reviews (SRs) that evaluate the benefits and harms of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from 2018 to August 7, 2022. We included SRs with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the question of interest. We assessed the methodological quality of the SRs with the AMSTAR-2 tool. We summarized the results of the outcomes for each SR. We calculated the degree of overlap of the RCTs included in the SRs using the corrected covered area (CCA). Results: We found 10 SRs with meta-analyses. The SRs included 3 to 15 RCTs. The degree of overlap among the SRs was very high (CCA > 15%). No SR evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE system and 9 out of 10 had critically low methodological quality. The SRs reported heterogeneous results for the outcomes of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and angina. On the other hand, for the outcomes of cardiovascular mortality and stroke, all SRs agreed that there were no differences between PCI and OMT alone. Conclusions: We found 10 SRs on the use of PCI compared to OMT alone for patients with stable coronary artery disease. However, none had high methodological quality, none evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach, and the results were inconsistent for several outcomes. This variability in evidence may result in divergent clinical decisions for the management of stable coronary artery disease among healthcare professionals. It is necessary to perform a high-quality SR using the GRADE approach to clarify the balance of benefits and harms of PCI.
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.