ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Summary of the best evidence for dyadic disease management in patients who have undergone coronary stenting and their family caregivers.
Review 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically synthesize the best available evidence on dyadic disease management for patients and their family caregivers following coronary stent implantation and to develop actionable evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice. Methods: This evidence summary used the 6S evidence pyramid to guide the prioritization and retrieval of evidence sources. Chinese and international databases and relevant professional society websites were systematically searched from inception to February 28, 2026, using terms related to percutaneous coronary intervention/coronary stenting, caregivers/dyadic care, and self-management/disease management/cardiac rehabilitation. Two reviewers independently screened eligible evidence sources, assessed methodological quality using design-appropriate appraisal tools, and extracted and synthesized the evidence. Results: A total of 18 evidence sources were included, comprising 4 guidelines, 4 expert consensus statements, 2 systematic reviews, 1 evidence summary, 3 randomized controlled trials, and 4 quasi-experimental studies. Evidence synthesis yielded 27 evidence-based recommendations across five domains: assessment and planning, education and decision-making, self-management and rehabilitation, psychosocial support, and continuity of care. Key recommendations emphasized dyadic assessment of patient and caregiver needs, psychological status, caregiver burden, and readiness for collaboration; joint education and shared decision-making; caregiver-supported medication management, lifestyle modification, rehabilitation, symptom monitoring, and emergency response; psychosocial support for both members of the dyad; and coordinated discharge transition and follow-up. Conclusion: The synthesized evidence integrates previously dispersed caregiver-related findings into a structured, consent-based dyadic management pathway for post-stenting care. Clinicians should identify and assess the caregiver selected by the patient, clarify collaborative roles and goals, provide joint education and targeted skills training, and integrate caregiver support into self-management, rehabilitation, psychosocial care, discharge transition, and follow-up. This pathway offers a practical approach to incorporating caregiver participation into post-stenting secondary prevention while preserving patient autonomy and addressing the needs of both members of the dyad.
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.