ReviewFuture cardiology2025
The shortcomings of the Medina compared to the Movahed coronary bifurcation classification.
Review in Future cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-Term Lesion Progression After Left Main Distal Bifurcation Stenting: Insights From Bifurcation Angle Variation Throughout the Cardiac Cycle.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Challenges and Optimization of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Coronary Bifurcation Lesions.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Coronary Bifurcation PCI-Part I: Fundamentals.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- The Use of the Medina Coronary Bifurcation Classification has Led to Confusion and Missing One Third of True Bifurcation Lesions. The Movahed Bifurcation Classification Should be the Preferred Classification as it Categorizes All True Bifurcation Lesions in One Simple Category B2 Lesions with Limitless Suffixes that Can be Added if Needed.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Medina classification separates true bifurcation lesions into three unnecessary groups: 1.1.1, 1.0.1, and 0.1.1. Non-true bifurcation lesions are divided into three unnecessary subgroups called 0.0.1, 0.1.0, and 1.0.0. Furthermore, the Medina classification does not describe any other important features of a given bifurcation lesion, making it useless when comparing complex bifurcation lesions. This has led to confusion in clinical settings and stagnation of bifurcation research. The Movahed bifurcation classification has overcome those problems by summarizing all true bifurcation lesions into one simple relevant category called B2 (B for bifurcation, 2 meaning both main and side branches at bifurcation site have significant lesions) and non-true bifurcation lesions into two simple categories called B1m (B for bifurcation, 1 m meaning only the main branch has significant lesion) and B1S lesions (B for bifurcation and 1 s meaning only the side branch has significant lesion). Moreover, at the same time, additional unlimited suffixes can be added if needed to describe a given bifurcation lesion, making this bifurcation also very comprehensive. In this perspective, the shortcomings of the Medina classification compared to the Movahed classification are discussed in detail.
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.