SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Risk prediction model for in-stent restenosis following PCI: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive value of remnant cholesterol for in-stent restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation.Medicine · 2026Article
- Development of a Risk Stratification Model for Coronary In-Stent Restenosis Based on Clinical, Laboratory, and Procedural Factors: A Case-Control Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical Prediction Model for Target Lesion Revascularization Within One Year After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: Nationwide Analysis Within the Netherlands Heart Registration.Clinical epidemiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The morbidity and mortality rates of coronary heart disease are significant, with PCI being the primary treatment. The high incidence of ISR following PCI poses a challenge to its effectiveness. Currently, there are numerous studies on ISR risk prediction models after PCI, but the quality varies and there is still a lack of systematic evaluation and analysis. Methods: To systematically retrieve and evaluate the risk prediction models for ISR after PCI. A comprehensive search was conducted across 9 databases from inception to March 1, 2024. The screening of literature and extraction of data were independently carried out by two investigators, utilizing the checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modeling studies (CHARMS). Additionally, the risk of bias and applicability were evaluated using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Results: A total of 17 studies with 29 models were included, with a sample size of 175-10,004 cases, and the incidence of outcome events was 5.79%-58.86%. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.530-0.953. The top 5 predictors with high frequency were diabetes, number of diseased vessels, age, LDL-C and stent diameter. Bias risk assessment into the research of the risk of higher bias the applicability of the four study better. Discussion: The overall risk of bias in the current ISR risk prediction model post-PCI is deemed high. Moving forward, it is imperative to enhance study design and specify the reporting process, optimize and validate the model, and enhance its performance.
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.