ArticleCJC open2026
Outcomes of No-Touch Vs Conventionally Harvested Saphenous Veins for Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis Protocol.
Article in CJC open, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effect of no-touch (NT) vs conventional (CON) saphenous vein graft (SVG) harvesting on SVG patency and clinical outcomes in coronary artery bypass remains unclear. Although prior trial-level meta-analyses have generally reported improved patency with NT SVG, outcomes show variability across studies, and evidence from 2 recent, larger multicentre randomized clinical trials is discordant. This individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) will evaluate the impact of harvesting techniques on graft patency and clinical outcomes. A systematic literature search was conducted for randomized clinical trials comparing NT SVG and CON SVG. Studies were eligible if they included at least 1 year of follow-up evaluation with graft imaging. The primary efficacy outcome will be graft failure, defined as graft-level study SVG occlusion. The secondary outcomes will include leg wound complications, patient-level graft failure, graft malfunction (composite of graft occlusion or stenosis), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or any repeat revascularization. A 2-stage IPDMA will be performed. In the first stage, mixed-effects logistic regression models will be fitted separately within each trial. In the second stage, trial-level estimates will be pooled using random-effects models to generate overall effects. Prespecified subgroup analyses will be conducted via a 2-stage framework to evaluate potential effect modification by key patient-level characteristics. This IPDMA will enable more robust evaluation of the effect of harvesting techniques on SVG patency and clinical outcomes, leveraging patient-level datasets for in-depth analyses, particularly among patient subgroups with distinct risk profiles.
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.