SynthesisFuture cardiology2024
Long-term clinical outcomes of intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in complex coronary lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Future cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of optical coherence tomography-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Comparative effectiveness and outcomes of physiology- and imaging-guided PCI: an evidence synthesis and network meta-analysis of FFR, iFR, OCT, and IVUS.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Optical coherence tomography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention compared to angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention for complex lesions.World journal of cardiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.