SynthesisBMC endocrine disorders2026
Does diabetes affect the incidence of non-target lesion revascularization? A meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC endocrine disorders, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to specifically investigate whether diabetes mellitus increases the risk of non-target lesion revascularization (NTLR) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and to assess whether glycemic control and follow-up duration influence this risk.
methodsA comprehensive electronic search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, covering publications from January 1990 to July 2024. Only studies published in English were included to ensure clarity and relevance. Our meta-analysis aimed to assess the differential outcomes of NTLR between patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM). A fixed-effect model was used to calculate relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Additionally, the quality of the evidence was rigorously assessed using the GRADE methodology, which allowed us to evaluate the reliability of the findings.
resultsThis study included 9295 individuals from five randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Patients with DM had a significantly higher likelihood of undergoing NTLR following PCI compared to non-diabetic patients (RR = 1.14; 95% CI: 1.01–1.28; p = 0.03).
conclusionsOur findings highlight that DM is associated with an increased risk of NTLR. By quantifying this risk, this meta-analysis demonstrated that individuals diagnosed with DM exhibit a greater susceptibility to non-target lesion revascularization following PCI. (PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42024588296). CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.