Content of review 1, reviewed on November 27, 2017
The article is good and the authors did a great job in collecting the dates and comparing theme. The abstract matches the rest of the article. The aim is stated clear. The title is informative and relevant. The background is clear about bioresorbable scaffolds(BRS), although it could have given more information about everolimus-eluting stents(EES). The research question is clearly outlined. The process of subject selection is clear.The variables are defined and measured appropriately, but in the eligibility criteria, the authors takes in consideration only patients treated with BRS, why not patients treated with EES also?(in the method section, second paragraph, first phrase: letter c and letter f from the selection of studies). The study methods are valid and reliable. Aspects of the methods that are clear: data abstraction, validity assessment and analysis, search strategy and study selection. Aspects of the methods that are unclear: Statistical analysis (kindly please take in consideration and note that I am not an expert in statistical references and ranges). There are questions that remain unanswered after reading through the methods: why did the author consider eligible studies with follow-up length of 2 years? why not more or less? why the cut-off of 2 years follow-up? Summary of the main findings of the paper :From a total of 5 eligible studies, 5219 patients were included . At 2 years, EES prove to be superior to BRS when compared :target lesion failure, device thrombosis, and the incidence of both early and very-late device thrombosis. This matches the summary of the results in the abstract. The data presented is in an appropriate way: tables and figures relevant and clearly presented; appropriate units, rounding, and number of decimals; titles, columns, and rows labelled correctly and clearly; categories grouped appropriately. The text add to the data presented in the tables and figures.The result statistically significant is clear.Aspects of the results that are clear: search results, study characteristics, meta-analysis results( EES are superior to BRS when compared :target lesion failure, device thrombosis, and the incidence of both early and very-late device thrombosis).There are no aspects of the results that are unclear.There are no questions that remain unanswered after reading through the results.Titles, columns and rows are labelled correctly and clearly. The categories are grouped appropriately. The text adds to the data. The conclusions answers the aim of the study and they are supported by references and results. The limitations of the study (as stated by the author also) are opportunities to inform future research. The references are relevant, recent, referenced correctly and include appropriate key studies. Overall, the study design is appropriate to answer the aim. I did not spot major flaws of this article. I consider it consistent within itself. This is a 5-trial meta-analysis that wants to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bioresorbable scaffolds(BRS) compared with everolimus-eluting stents (EES) at long-term follow-up in patients with coronary artery disease. Authors made a great job collecting the dates and comparing through all studies. The pooled analysis of 5219 patients revealed that BRS was associated with higher rates of DvT compared with EES (2.3% vs 0.7%; p<0.001), and have poorer outcomes compared to EES.
Source
© 2017 the Reviewer.
References
Alberto, P., Remzi, A., Thomas, M., Ciro, I., Salvatore, D. R., Tommaso, G. 2017. Long-term outcome of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for the treatment of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of RCTs. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders.