This figure depicts the meta-analysis of the impact of distal balloon embolic protection devices versus control on 180-day mortality. The first trial by Tahk and colleagues in 2008 provided a relative risk of 0.19 with a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.00 to 1.81. The second trial by Hahn and colleagues in 2007 provided a relative risk of 0.5 with a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.00 to 3.88. The third trial by Muramatsu and colleagues in 2007 provided a relative risk of 0.95 with a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.43 to 2.08. The fourth trial by Stone and colleagues in 2005 provided a relative risk of 0.96 with a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.38 to 2.43. The combined effect of the four trials showed a relative risk of 0.86 with a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.48 to 1.57. The Cochran Q p-value was 0.709, the I-squared value was zero percent and the Egger's p-value was 0.044.

Figure 10Impact of distal balloon embolic protection devices versus control on 180-day mortality

Cochran Q: P = 0.709

I2: 0%

Egger: P = 0.044

Legend: The squares represent individual point estimates. The size of the square represents the weight given to each study in the meta-analysis. Horizontal lines through each square represent 95 percent confidence intervals. The diamond represents the combined results. The solid vertical line extending from 1 is the null value.

From: Appendix I, Forest Plots for Results of Final Health Outcomes Analyzed at Individual Time Points

Cover of Adjunctive Devices for Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Adjunctive Devices for Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [Internet].
Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 42.
Sobieraj DM, White CM, Kluger J, et al.
Copyright Notice

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.