ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis-We Need a Well-Designed Randomized Control Trial.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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.
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and Replacement: The Latest Advances and Prospects.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bicuspid aortic stenosis is a common pathology, typically seen in patients a decade younger than those with tricuspid valves. Surgical aortic valve replacement has been the mainstay treatment for bicuspid disease, especially considering the prevalence of concomitant aortic aneurysmal pathology. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has shown equivalent results in bicuspid compared to tricuspid pathology in highly selected patient populations in single-arm registries and observational studies. For older patients with favorable bicuspid pathology, TAVR is reasonable. However, as younger patients with longer life expectancy are now being treated with TAVR, what is "best" is a question only answered by a well-designed randomized controlled trial. Herein, we describe the current evidence for treating bicuspid aortic stenosis and provide a framework for future trials. Yet, the question of equipoise remains, and who will we enroll?
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.