Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41809180›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of methodology2026

Sirolimus

Debvarsha Mandal, Thomas Viji Pulickal, Dhritika Ahlawat, Wasiullah Haqbeen, Izma Kashif, Haroon Alamy, Pramoda Prattipati, Padmavathi Jaladi, Paula Kabiaru, Anjali Avula and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

14 authors.

Debvarsha MandalDepartment of Internal Medicine, Avalon University School of Medicine, Willemstad 4797, Netherlands.
Thomas Viji PulickalDepartment of Internal Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar 750017, India.
Dhritika AhlawatDepartment of Internal Medicine, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh 0172, Chandīgarh, India.
Wasiullah HaqbeenDepartment of Cardiology, Kabul University of Medical Sciences, Kabul 20, Afghanistan.
Izma KashifDepartment of Cardiology, University College of Medicine and Dentistry, Lahore 05450, Punjab, Pakistan.
Haroon AlamyDepartment of Cardiology, Kabul University of Medical Sciences, Kabul 20, Afghanistan.
Pramoda PrattipatiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Belagavi 0831, India.
Padmavathi JaladiDepartment of Internal Medicine, S Nijalingappa Medical College, HSK Hospital and Research Centre, Bagalkot 587101, India.
Paula KabiaruDepartment of Cardiology, University of Nairobi School of Medicine, Nairobi 00100, Kenya.
Anjali AvulaDepartment of Cardiology, Guntur Medical College, Guntur 522001, India.
Sandeep KshetriDepartment of Internal Medicine, Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara 33700, Nepal.
Irum RazaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Shalamar Medical College, Lahore 05450, Punjab, Pakistan.
Samir ShamiehDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman 11110-17198, Jordan.
Rejina ChhetriDepartment of Cardiology, Nepalgunj Medical College, Kohalpur, Banke, Kohal 21900, Nepal. rejinachhetri01@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn-stent restenosis (ISR) is a persistent challenge after percutaneous coronary intervention, with drug-coated balloons such as sirolimus-coated balloons (SCBs) and paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) being key treatment options. However, data comparing their efficacy and safety are limited.

aimTo evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of SCBs

methodsA systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and ScienceDirect was conducted from inception to May 2025, following Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing SCBs and PCBs in adults with coronary ISR, reporting outcomes like target lesion revascularization (TLR), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), stent thrombosis, all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and myocardial infarction. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the

resultsFour studies (three randomized controlled trials and one observational study) were analyzed. No significant differences were found between SCBs and PCBs for TLR (RR 1.22, 95%CI: 0.72-2.06,

conclusionSCBs and PCBs show similar efficacy and safety for coronary ISR, allowing flexible use based on availability and patient needs. Future studies should explore long-term outcomes and high-risk groups to optimize ISR management.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular outcomesCoronary interventionsIn-stent restenosisPaclitaxel coated balloonSirolimus coated balloon

Identifiers

PMID41809180
PMCPMC12968773

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.