Key result
Coronary revascularization trials frequently under-represent critical patient populations, such as those with diabetes or complex disease, and utilize problematic composite clinical endpoints.
Why the study?
Are contemporary coronary revascularization trials truly representative of real-world patient profiles and clinical practices?
Are contemporary coronary revascularization trials truly representative of real-world patient profiles and clinical practices?
Highlights the necessity for critical appraisal of external validity in coronary revascularization trials, especially regarding diabetic patients and anatomical complexity.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hui et al. (2025) conducted an editorial in Coronary artery disease. Coronary revascularization trials was evaluated. Coronary revascularization trials frequently under-represent critical patient populations, such as those with diabetes or complex disease, and utilize problematic composite clinical endpoints.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: