SynthesisFuture cardiology2026
Contemporary sirolimus-based stent platforms versus durable-polymer limus-eluting stents in patients with diabetes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Future cardiology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized evidence comparing sirolimus-based stent platforms with durable-polymer limus-eluting drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with diabetes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
methodsPubMed/MEDLINE and Embase were searched through April 2026. Randomized trials and diabetic cohorts from randomized trials reporting approximately 1-year clinical outcomes were included; nonrandomized and surrogate-only reports were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. Random-effects meta-analysis used restricted maximum likelihood estimation with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman confidence intervals.
resultsEight randomized comparisons (5,988 patients) were included. Target lesion failure yielded a risk ratio (RR) of 1.14 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-2.26; I
conclusionsCurrent evidence does not support preferential adoption of dedicated diabetic stent platforms over conventional durable-polymer DES. Longer-term trials are needed. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD420261356994.
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.