SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Prognostic value of red cell distribution width in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Published studies have reported inconsistent findings regarding the association between preprocedural red cell distribution width (RDW) and adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and earlier reviews no longer reflect the currently available evidence. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to reassess the association between preprocedural RDW and adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing PCI. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to November 22, 2025. Standard major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality (ACM), and cardiovascular mortality (CVM) were prespecified as the primary outcomes, whereas PCI-specific stent-related outcomes were analyzed separately as exploratory outcomes. Hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted for quantitative synthesis when appropriate. Results: Twenty-four studies comprising 31 comparison groups and approximately 83,000 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Elevated preprocedural RDW was associated with higher risks of ACM (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.31-1.63) and CVM (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.33-2.07), with the most consistent association observed for ACM. The HR-based analysis of standard MACE showed a statistically significant association (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.06-1.45; Conclusions: Elevated preprocedural RDW was associated with adverse outcomes after PCI. The most consistent association was observed for ACM, whereas the evidence for CVM and standard MACE was less certain. PCI-specific stent-related outcomes should be interpreted as exploratory. Further prospective multicenter studies with standardized endpoint definitions and harmonized RDW cutoff values are warranted. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251249457, PROSPERO, CRD420251249457.
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.