Overview of systematic reviews on invasive treatment of stable coronary artery disease

Abstract

We found some high-quality systematic reviews. There was evidence on the potential of invasive treatments to provide symptomatic relief. Surgery seems to provide a longer-lasting effect than percutaneous interventions with bare metal stents or without stents. Evidence in favor of drug-eluting stents so far is based on short-term follow-up and mostly on patients with single-vessel disease.

Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…We found a previous study which performed an extensive overview and quality assessments of systematic reviews on invasive treatment of stable coronary artery disease (17). We found a previous study which performed an extensive overview and quality assessments of systematic reviews on invasive treatment of stable coronary artery disease (17).…”

Evaluation of the Scope and Quality of Systematic Reviews on Nonpharmacological Conservative Treatment for Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome

“…The current scale was similar in design to a scale previously used in systematic reviews of systematic reviews 45,50 developed by Hoving et al 45 However, the current scale is more comprehensive in its assessment of quality. It was intended to be more rigorous in evaluating the comprehensiveness of a review's search strategy (criteria 2-5), with 4 items in the current scale compared to 1 in the scale by Hoving et al 45 The current scale included criteria specific to the systematic review question (criteria 4 and 7), including the adequacy of key words and inclusion of potential studies based on their PFPS diagnosis.…”

“…Authors of a few previous systematic reviews of systematic reviews in other areas of health care have not used a quality assessment scale. 28,29 Other reviews 45,50 have used a simple scale consisting of 9 items developed by Hoving et al 45 using the Oxman checklist. 61 Despite its moderate to excellent reliability (weighted kappa statistics between 0.66 and 0.94 for each item), we decided that an improved rating scale of a similar design would be more appropriate for the current systematic review.…”

Differences Between Early, Intermediate, and Late Angioplasty After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

“…[1][2][3] Since its introduction in 1962 until the first percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 1977, this modality was the single nonpharmacologic treatment for coronary artery stenosis. Despite the introduction of PCI, CABG remained for many years the main interventional treatment for coronary artery stenosis and was further improved by using arterial grafts instead of venous grafts.…”

“…PCI has become the standard revascularization procedure in the setting of acute MI and is now being implemented in high-risk patients with comorbidity, high age, and high-risk multivessel coronary anatomy. 3,[15][16][17] Moreover, the beneficial role of revascularization by emergency PCI has been shown. 18 Nevertheless, CABG continues to be a very important primary treatment in patients where PCI is not possible or unsuccessful.…”