ArticleWorld journal of cardiology2025
Temporal trends in characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous mitral valve repair.
Article in World journal of cardiology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObservational studies reported characteristics and outcomes of patients with secondary mitral valve regurgitation (MR) who underwent transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve. No study investigated the temporal trend of patient characteristics and outcomes in comparison with the published randomized trials.
aimTo investigate the temporal trend in baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients with secondary MR who underwent transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve in the real world compared with those from the published landmark trials.
methodsA comprehensive systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, and the identified observational studies were divided into two five-year recruitment periods. The first period included 36 studies that enrolled patients between 2008 and 2012, and the second period included 25 studies that recruited patients between 2013 and 2017-2018. Pooled variables of each five-year recruitment period were compared with those of the landmark trials. A random-effects model was used for statistical comparisons. RStudio and RevMan software were used for the analysis.
resultsOverall, there were no major variations in the findings between the first and the second five-year recruitment periods. EVEREST program
conclusionPatients in the landmark studies may have favourable or unfavourable characteristics when compared to those in the observational studies, but this did not translate into different outcomes over time.
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.