SynthesisCurrent cardiology reports2015
Bypass grafting versus percutaneous intervention in multivessel coronary disease: the current state.
Synthesis in Current cardiology reports, 2015. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whether stenting or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the best revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel disease has been a heavily debated controversy. The trials comparing the two methods were unfortunately underpowered for mortality. Moreover, results of clinical trials appeared to contradict with each other. Because CABG is unequivocally a more cumbersome method, stenting became commonly preferred in the absence of evidence for mortality difference. Meta-analysis is a powerful tool, especially when several high-quality randomized trials are available on the same issue. In these instances, meta-analyses can overcome the power limitation of the individual trials. Our recent meta-analysis reveals that, as compared to stenting, CABG leads to unequivocal reductions in mortality and myocardial infarctions in patients with multivessel disease. These benefits are seen regardless of whether patients are diabetic or not and also do not depend on whether bare-metal or drug-eluting stents are used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25618303What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.