ReviewUS cardiology2020
Intravascular Ultrasound-guided Versus Angiography-guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Evidence from Observational Studies and Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in US cardiology, 2020. 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Optical coherence tomography-guided vs. intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Review
- Early stent fractures in superficial femoral artery resulting multiple pseudoaneurysm formation within one year: a case report.CVIR endovascular · 2023Article
- Role of Intravascular Ultrasound in Guiding Complex Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.US cardiology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary angiography has been considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease and guidance of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, 2D-projection angiography cannot completely reflect the 3D coronary lumen. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) can overcome a number of limitations of coronary angiography by providing more information about the dimensions of the vessel lumen, plaque characteristics, stent deployment, and the mechanisms of device failure. Growing data from observational studies and randomized controlled trials have confirmed the clinical benefit of IVUS guidance during PCI. This article summarizes the evidence regarding IVUS guidance to highlight its advantages and to support the use of IVUS during 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.