Completeness of revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease: a network meta-analysis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Multivessel coronary artery disease (MCAD) is a common manifestation of ischaemic heart disease, associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Revascularization using coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is standard practice for many patients. However, outcomes may depend on the completeness of revascularization—whether all ischaemic or anatomically significant lesions are treated—which is often suboptimal. Complete revascularization (CR) has been suggested to improve long-term outcomes compared to incomplete revascularization (IR), but head-to-head comparisons across modalities are limited. This protocol outlines the methodology for a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) assessing complete vs incomplete revascularization via CABG and PCI in patients with MCAD. Methods and analysis This protocol follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-P and PRISMA-NMA guidelines and is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024610743). A comprehensive search will be conducted in MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus to identify RCTs and observational studies comparing complete and incomplete revascularization in MCAD. Eligible studies must report at least one of the following outcomes with ≥12 months follow-up: all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stroke, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), or major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Risk of bias will be assessed using RoB2 for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. A Bayesian NMA with random-effects modelling will be conducted using the BUGSnet package in R. Treatment ranking will be performed using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. Discussion This study will evaluate the impact of complete vs incomplete revascularization in MCAD, providing clarity on optimal strategies and informing patient-centred clinical decisions. Our findings will support clinicians in choosing revascularization methods that maximize long-term cardiovascular outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.065 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".