SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Association between stent length and number and the risk of in-stent restenosis in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The association of stent length and number with the risk of in-stent restenosis (ISR) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) has been widely reported, yet findings remain inconsistent across studies. To clarify this relationship, we conducted a meta-analysis of observational studies evaluating the impact of stent length and number on ISR risk after PCI in CAD patients. Methods: Case-control studies addressing stent length, stent number, and ISR after PCI in CAD patients were systematically searched in electronic databases including VIP, Wanfang, CNKI, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library from inception until June 2025. The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was used to assess study quality. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. All analyses were performed with Review Manager version 5.4. Results: Eighteen studies involving 6,585 participants were included. Meta-analyses indicated that both stent length [OR = 1.05, 95% CI (1.04, 1.07), Conclusion: This meta-analysis supports the conclusion that stent length and number are associated with an increased risk of ISR after PCI in CAD patients. However, given the limited number and moderate quality of the included studies, these findings should be interpreted with caution and validated by further high-quality research.
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.