SynthesisMedicine2025
Paclitaxel-coated balloon versus paclitaxel-eluting stent for femoropopliteal arterial disease: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPaclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) are widely used in femoropopliteal arterial disease (FPAD), while the comparison of their clinical benefit is inconclusive. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy between PCB and PES for FPAD.
methodsThree internet databases were searched for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Random-effects model was used for pooled clinical outcomes grouped by PCB or PES, following with an indirect comparison. Subgroup analysis was planned according to age, gender, history of smoking, hypertension, and diabetes.
resultsTwenty-five RCTs encompassing 2806 patients were included. There were no significant differences between PCB and PES concerning the incidence of primary patency rate (risk of restenosis [RR]: 0.925; 95% CI: 0.815-1.049; P = .222), target lesion revascularization (TLR) (RR: 1.248; 95% CI: 0.798-1.952; P = .332), death (RR: 1.130; 95% CI: 0.436-2.930; P = .801), restenosis (RR: 1.012; 95% CI: 0.647-1.581; P = .959), amputation (RR: 1.000; 95% CI: 0.314-3.181; P = 1.000), and thrombosis (RR: 0.240; 95% CI: 0.049-1.180; P = .079). Subgroup analysis showed a lower primary patency rate in patients ≥ 70-year-old (RR: 0.703; 95% CI: 0.510-0.968; P = .031) and an increased risk of TLR when diabetes proportion was ≥ 40.0% (RR: 1.755; 95% CI: 1.013-3.042; P = .045) with PCB. Moreover, PCB might increase mortality in smokers (RR: 1.957; 95% CI: 1.000-3.828; P = .050).
conclusionsRegarding safety, no significant differences was found between PCB and PES. Further large-scale RCTs should be conducted based on the direct comparison results.
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.