ReviewCureus2024
Complete Versus Incomplete Revascularization in Elderly Patients With Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of mortality in the United States, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is established as the standard after an acute episode of CAD. This review assessed the use of complete revascularization (CR) or incomplete revascularization (IR) in older adults, who present a higher cardiovascular risk. The aim is to define the effectiveness of both procedures in this population, focusing on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), and all-cause mortality (ACM). A literature search identified 15 studies, evaluated using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions I (ROBINS-I) tool for bias risk. Despite positive results in recent studies, this meta-analysis does not show the superiority of CR, demonstrating a lack of benefit in reducing mortality, myocardial infarction, and adverse events in the ≥ 70-year-old age group.
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.