SynthesisBMC neurology2026
Drug-coated balloon versus bare-metal stent for the treatment of symptomatic vertebral artery origin stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC neurology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSymptomatic vertebral artery origin stenosis (VAOS) is associated with high recurrent stroke risk despite medical therapy. While bare-metal stents (BMS) are established for endovascular treatment, in-stent restenosis remains common. Drug-coated balloons (DCB) offer a stent-free alternative, but comparative effectiveness is uncertain.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus for comparative studies of DCB vs. BMS in symptomatic VAOS. The primary outcome was imaging-confirmed restenosis; secondary outcomes included symptomatic restenosis, technical success, periprocedural complications, and follow-up cerebrovascular events. Subgroup (study type, VAOS severity, imaging modality: digital subtraction angiography [DSA]-based vs. non-DSA-based) and sensitivity analyses were performed.
resultsFour studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 2 cohort studies) involving 329 patients (165 DCB, 164 BMS) were included. DCB significantly reduced imaging-confirmed restenosis (risk ratio [RR] = 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27-0.73), with benefits in RCTs (RR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.25-0.77), severe VAOS (≥ 70%; RR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.22-0.70), and DSA-based follow-up (RR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.19-0.68). No between-group differences were observed in secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the primary result was highly influenced by the largest RCT, with limited robustness.
conclusionsIn this hypothesis-generating meta-analysis, DCB is associated with lower rates of imaging-confirmed restenosis than BMS in symptomatic VAOS, with comparable safety. These are preliminary findings limited to four small-sample studies from a single country and should not be used to guide routine clinical selection. Large, multicenter, long-term follow-up RCTs are required to confirm these results.
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.