ReviewEJVES vascular forum2026
Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials Comparing Balloon Expandable with Self Expanding Stents for the Treatment of Iliac Artery Occlusive Disease.
Review in EJVES vascular forum, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This review aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of balloon expandable Method: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing balloon expandable with self expanding stents for the treatment of iliac artery occlusive disease was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE and Embase were searched using the Ovid interface. Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis were performed. Dichotomous data were pooled using fixed effects models (Mantel-Haenszel method). Trial sequential analysis assumed alpha = 5% and power = 80%. The revised Cochrane tool and GRADE framework were used to assess risk of bias (RoB) and certainty of evidence, respectively. Results: Three RCTs reporting 891 patients were included. Meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference in target vessel revascularisation (TVR) (odds ratio [OR] 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-5.58; Conclusion: Meta-analysis of highest level data showed no significant difference in certain clinical outcomes between balloon expandable and self expanding stents in the treatment of iliac artery occlusive disease. Overall, there are insufficient data in the current literature to ascertain the superiority of one stent strategy over another, and trial sequential analysis confirmed that further trials are required.
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.