HomeCirculation: Cardiovascular InterventionsVol. 4, No. 2Response to Letter Regarding Article, “Drug-Eluting or Bare Metal Stents for the Treatment of Saphenous Vein Graft Disease: A Bayesian Meta-Analysis” Free AccessReplyPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessReplyPDF/EPUBResponse to Letter Regarding Article, “Drug-Eluting or Bare Metal Stents for the Treatment of Saphenous Vein Graft Disease: A Bayesian Meta-Analysis” Jean-Michel Paradis, MD, Olivier F. Bertrand, MD, PhD, Robert DeLarochellière, MD, Jean-Pierre Déry, MD, MHS, Éric Larose, DVM, MD, Josep Rodés-Cabau, MD and Stéphane Rinfret, MD, SM Patrick Bélisle, MSc and Lawrence Joseph, PhD Jean-Michel ParadisJean-Michel Paradis Search for more papers by this author , Olivier F. BertrandOlivier F. Bertrand Search for more papers by this author , Robert DeLarochellièreRobert DeLarochellière Search for more papers by this author , Jean-Pierre DéryJean-Pierre Déry Search for more papers by this author , Éric LaroseÉric Larose Search for more papers by this author , Josep Rodés-CabauJosep Rodés-Cabau Search for more papers by this author and Stéphane RinfretStéphane Rinfret Search for more papers by this author Patrick BélislePatrick Bélisle Search for more papers by this author and Lawrence JosephLawrence Joseph Search for more papers by this author Originally published1 Apr 2011https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.111.961581Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2011;4:e15As pointed out by Hakeem et al, other meta-analyses have been published recently on the use of drug-eluting versus bare metal stents in saphenous vein grafts. Because the data on which they are founded are available to researchers worldwide, meta-analyses are certainly more prone to redundancy than original research. However, we still believe that our meta-analysis differed slightly from other reviews because it was the first to use a bayesian hierarchical random-effects model. Moreover, at the time of our literature search, the number of patients collected in our meta-analysis was the highest ever reported. Finally, our work included new data from contemporary studies, including, for example, the STENT registry.1We agree with Hakeem et al on the fact that there is a need for a facility that will assume a prospective registration of protocols for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies evaluating health care interventions. This kind of centralized open registry would consequently provide more transparency throughout the publication process, from protocol redaction to revelation of potential bias. This would also avoid superfluous duplication. In fact, a simple, free, web-based, easily searchable platform would be beneficial to inform medical researcher on ongoing reviews and meta-analyses. Thus, we support initiatives like the PRISMA statement,2 which will probably lead to a more efficient use of the finite research funding and to an improvement of the overall quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Jean-Michel Paradis, MDOlivier F. Bertrand, MD, PhDRobert DeLarochellière, MDJean-Pierre Déry, MD, MHSÉric Larose, DVM, MDJosep Rodés-Cabau, MDStéphane Rinfret, MD, SM Institut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec (Quebec Heart and Lung Institute) Quebec City, CanadaPatrick Bélisle, MScLawrence Joseph, PhD McGill University Health Center Montreal, CanadaDisclosuresNone.