Evidence mapPaperPMID 27111304Full record

SynthesisPloS one2016

Comparing the Clinical Outcomes between Drug Eluting Stents and Bare Metal Stents in Patients with Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 10 Randomized Controlled Trials.

Pravesh Kumar Bundhun, Akash Bhurtu, Mohammad Zafooruddin Sani Soogund, Man-Yun Long

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Diabetes and restenosis.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2022
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pravesh Kumar BundhunInstitute of Cardiovascular Diseases, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, 530021, P. R. China.
Akash BhurtuGuangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, 530021, P. R. China.
Mohammad Zafooruddin Sani SoogundGuangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, 530021, P. R. China.
Man-Yun LongInstitute of Cardiovascular Diseases, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, 530021, P. R. China.
First Affiliated Hospital of GuangXi Medical University · CNGuangxi Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral studies have shown Drug Eluting Stents (DES) to be better compared to Bare Metal Stents (BMS) in patients with type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). Since, the adverse clinical outcomes in patients with Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (ITDM) implanted with DES and BMS have not been previously studied, we aim to compare the clinical outcomes in similar patients with cardiovascular diseases, treated with DES and BMS.

methodsRandomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing patients treated with DES and BMS were searched from PubMed and EMBASE databases. Outcome data for the patients with ITDM were carefully extracted. Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACEs), mortality, Target Vessel Revascularization (TVR), Target Lesion Revascularization (TLR), Myocardial Infarction (MI) and Stent Thrombosis (ST) were considered as the clinical endpoints for this analysis. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and the pooled analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3 software.

resultsTen RCTs consisting of 830 patients with ITDM (477 patients in the DES group and 353 patients in the BMS group) from a total number of 9,141 patients were included in this analysis. During a follow-up period from one month to one year, MACEs were not increased with the use of DES in these patients with ITDM. At 9 months, MACEs were significantly lower in the DES group with OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.23-0.72; P = 0.002 with no increase in mortality. TVR and TLR also favored the DES group with OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.22-0.88, P = 0.02 and OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.14-0.53; P = 0.0001 respectively at 9 months, and OR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.23-0.94, P = 0.03 and OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.14-0.55; P = 0.0003 respectively at one year. Results for MI, and ST were not statistically significant.

conclusionCompared to BMS, DES were associated with a significantly lower rate of repeated revascularization, without any increase in MACEs or mortality in these patients with ITDM during a follow up period of one year. However, due to the very small population size, further studies with a larger number of randomized patients are required to completely solve this issue.

Indexed as

Drug-Eluting StentsStentsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHumansInsulinMaleInsulin

Identifiers

PMID27111304
PMCPMC4844102
OpenAlexW2343213256

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.