SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Surgical, perventricular, and transcatheter closure for ventricular septal defects: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2026. 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
backgroundVentricular septal defect is a common congenital heart defect. While surgical repair has been the standard, transcatheter and perventricular closures have emerged as minimally invasive alternatives.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar up to February 2026. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated with GRADE. We conducted pairwise random-effects meta-analyses for direct comparisons, followed by a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis to indirectly compare transcatheter and perventricular closure.
resultsSeven randomized controlled trials involving 2,126 participants were included. Studies were conducted in China, Egypt, or Russia. No deaths were reported. Transcatheter and perventricular closures may reduce blood transfusion needs compared to surgical repair, but the evidence is very uncertain. Perventricular closure may reduce hospital stay and operative time but may increase tricuspid regurgitation risk, compared to surgical repair. No significant differences were observed in indirect comparisons of transcatheter and perventricular approaches. Certainty of the evidence was low to very low.
conclusionCurrent evidence suggests that transcatheter and perventricular approaches may be associated with a lower need for blood transfusion compared with surgical repair, while perventricular closure may also reduce length of hospital stay but may increase tricuspid regurgitation. However, the evidence is uncertain, precluding firm conclusions and highlighting the need for well-designed, adequately powered randomized controlled trials. PROSPERO I REGISTRATION: CRD42024595282
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.