SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2025
Comparison of the Efficacy of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon Angioplasty for Coronary In-Stent Restenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of the study was to systematically evaluate and compare the efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EESs) and paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) in treating patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR). Methods: We performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase databases up to August 2024. Two researchers independently conducted literature retrieval, screening, data inclusion, and quality assessment. A collaborative meta-analysis was performed using Stata 17.0. Results: A total of ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, all assessed using the Cochrane quality assessment tool and were categorized as having a low risk of bias. The analysis revealed a significantly higher need for target lesion revascularization in the PCB group compared to the EES group (odds ratio (OR) Conclusion: PCBs are associated with a higher frequency of target lesion revascularization compared to EES in the treatment of ISR. However, there are no significant differences in other outcome indicators. Therefore, EES is recommended as the preferred treatment for ISR in clinical decision-making. The INPLASY registration: INPLASY202480079, https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2024-8-0079/.
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.