Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39267809›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024

Risk prediction model for in-stent restenosis following PCI: a systematic review.

Qin Xiang, Xiao-Yun Xiong, Si Liu, Mei-Jun Zhang, Ying-Jie Li, Hui-Wen Wang, Rui Wu, Lu Chen

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Qin XiangDepartment of Nursing, The 2nd Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Xiao-Yun XiongDepartment of Nursing, The 2nd Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Si LiuSchool of Nursing, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Mei-Jun ZhangSchool of Nursing, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Ying-Jie LiSchool of Nursing, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Hui-Wen WangSchool of Nursing, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Rui WuSchool of Nursing, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Lu ChenSchool of Nursing, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

coronary heart diseasePCIprediction modelrestenosissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39267809
PMCPMC11390508

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.