SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Evaluating drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent for the treatment of small coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis 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: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons (DCB) vs. drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to March 18, 2024, for randomized controlled trials comparing DCB with DES in small-vessel coronary disease (reference vessel diameter ≤2.75 mm or ≤2.5 mm). Primary outcomes included nonfatal myocardial infarction, cardiac death, all-cause death, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target-vessel revascularization (TVR). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models depending on heterogeneity. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO. Results: Six unique RCT cohorts (eight publications) comprising 1,849 patients were included. No significant differences were observed between DCB and DES for nonfatal myocardial infarction (OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.55-1.39; Conclusion: Current randomized evidence indicates that DCB provides comparable clinical outcomes to DES in patients with Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/, identifier CRD420261500541.
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.