SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
A meta-analysis of the efficacy of limus-coated balloons vs. paclitaxel-coated balloons for coronary artery disease.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of limus-coated balloons (Limus-DCB) compared with paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Limus-DCB with PCB for coronary artery disease from inception to June 2026. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1 software. Results: A total of 10 studies involving 11 RCTs with 1,707 patients and 1,804 treated vessels were included. The meta-analysis showed that the Limus-DCB group was associated with marginally greater in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) (MD = 0.10, 95% CI 0.00-0.19, Conclusions: Based on current evidence, compared with PCB, Limus-DCB are associated with less favorable angiographic outcomes in the treatment of coronary artery disease. However, no statistically significant short-term clinical differences were detected between the two groups. Due to the limitations in the quantity and quality of the included studies, these findings need to be verified by more high-quality research. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/recorddashboard, identifier CRD420251153751.
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.