ArticleSystematic reviews2025
Surgical compared to percutaneous repair of aortic coarctation in the pediatric population: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis update.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Correlates of Recoarctation After Repair in Pediatric Patients with Aortic Coarctation: A Real-World Descriptive Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNative coarctation of the aorta (CoA) accounts for 6-8% of congenital heart defects and poses significant morbidity and mortality risks if untreated. By incorporating the most recent evidence, focusing on the pediatric population, this protocol outlines the planned approach for a systematic review and meta-analysis update that will compare the long-term safety and effectiveness of surgical repair, balloon angioplasty, and stenting in CoA patients.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted. Electronic databases, including Scopus, LILACS, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, IBECS, OpenGrey, and major trial registries, will be searched for comparative studies of stent versus surgery and of balloon angioplasty versus surgery. Randomized control trials and observational studies focused on pediatric patients will be eligible. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts based on predefined eligibility criteria, and two will assess the full texts of relevant studies. Quality assessment will be done with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Pre-planned analyses, including quantitative and sensitivity analyses, are detailed within this protocol. R Studio will be used to analyze the data. The strength of the body of evidence will be assessed using GRADE. DISCUSSION: Despite recent advances in surgical and percutaneous techniques for CoA, there remains uncertainty on the best strategy for achieving long-term safety and effectiveness of treatment, particularly in the pediatric population. This study's comprehensive comparative outcomes analysis will help bridge these gaps and inform clinical decision-making. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024549170. Registered on May 20th 2024.
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.