ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
The application of drug-coated balloon to
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To observe the efficacy of drug-coated balloon (DCB) in the treatment of Methods: A total of 126 patients who were diagnosed and treated in the Department of Cardiology, Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University from April 2021 to December 2024 were selected, and all of them were treated with DCB for Results: The average length of the target vessel lesion in the included cases was 16.64 ± 5.65 mm, and the reference diameter of the target vessel lesion was 3.19 ± 0.35 mm. During follow-up of 14.80 ± 8.55 months, none of the patients suffered acute myocardial infarction or severe arrhythmia, cardiogenic shock, and stroke. None of the cases showed revascularization of the target vessel at follow-up, and the late lumen loss during follow-up was -0.03 ± 0.23 mm. There was no significant difference in late lumen loss between the two groups of patients with different lesion lengths [-0.03 ± 0.21 mm vs. -0.02 ± 0.25 mm, Conclusions: DCB is safe and effective in treating
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.