ArticleBMJ open2025
Physiology-guided versus angiography-guided strategies for valve surgery accompanying coronary heart disease: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesCardiovascular diseases, particularly those involving valvular and coronary conditions, lead to significant global mortality. Current strategies combine surgeries like valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting, which can increase perioperative risks. Research indicates that physiology-guided strategies such as fractional flow reserve and quantitative flow ratio improve outcomes by guiding more precise surgical interventions. This study aims to compare physiology-guided and angiography-guided surgical strategies, focusing on evaluating their efficacy and safety in treating patients with combined valvular and coronary pathologies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for studies comparing outcomes of physiology-guided and angiography-guided strategies for patients with valvular diseases combined with coronary heart disease. All English articles published before 31 May 2024 will be considered. The primary outcomes will be major adverse cardiovascular events and graft occlusion rate. The secondary outcomes will be cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, repeat revascularisation, and so on. The Jadad score and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale will be used to assess the quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, respectively. The Q-test and I² statistic will be used to assess the heterogeneity. For the primary outcome, we will perform the subgroup analysis if sufficient studies are available. We will also conduct leave-one-out sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of each individual study on the overall results. The protocol follows the Cochrane Handbook for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is a secondary analysis of previous studies and therefore does not require ethical approval. Our research will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024542876.
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.