1. Figure 1 Flow diagram of systematic review
Figure 1 Flow diagram of systematic review. The study flow diagram was depicted following the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) statement. RCT, randomized controlled trial; DES, drug-eluting stent.
From: Biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents vs. bare metal stents vs. durable-polymer drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and Bayesian approach network meta-analysis
Eur Heart J. 2014;35(17): doi: /eurheartj/eht570
Eur Heart J | Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author For permissions please

2. Figure 2 Network plot of included trials
Figure 2 Network plot of included trials. Each stent is represented by a node. The size of the node is proportional to the sample size randomized to each stent, while the thickness of the line connecting the nodes is to the total randomized sample size in each pairwise treatment comparison. BMS, bare metal stents; PES, paclitaxel-eluting stents; SES, sirolimus-eluting stents; ZES-E, endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stents; CoCr-EES, cobalt–chromium everolimus-eluting stents; PtCr-EES, platinum–chromium everolimus-eluting stents; ZES-R, resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents; BP-BES, biodegradable-polymer-biolimus-eluting stents.
From: Biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents vs. bare metal stents vs. durable-polymer drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and Bayesian approach network meta-analysis
Eur Heart J. 2014;35(17): doi: /eurheartj/eht570
Eur Heart J | Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author For permissions please

3. Figure 3 Risk of bias assessment
Figure 3 Risk of bias assessment. Risk of bias of each included trial was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. This ‘risk of bias graph’ illustrates the proportion of studies with each of the judgements for each entry in the tool. Green represents ‘yes (low risk of bias)’; yellow, ‘unclear’; red, ‘no (high risk of bias)’.
From: Biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents vs. bare metal stents vs. durable-polymer drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and Bayesian approach network meta-analysis
Eur Heart J. 2014;35(17): doi: /eurheartj/eht570
Eur Heart J | Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author For permissions please

4. Figure 4 Definite or probable stent thrombosis within 1 year
Figure 4 Definite or probable stent thrombosis within 1 year. The squares and horizontal lines indicate pairwise odds ratios and their 95% credible intervals for definite or probable stent thrombosis within 1 year estimated with multiple-treatment meta-analysis. BMS, bare metal stents; PES, paclitaxel-eluting stents; SES, sirolimus-eluting stents; ZES-E, endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stents; CoCr-EES, cobalt–chromium everolimus-eluting stents; PtCr-EES, platinum-chromium everolimus-eluting stents; ZES-R, resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents; BP-BES, biodegradable-polymer-biolimus-eluting stents.
From: Biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents vs. bare metal stents vs. durable-polymer drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and Bayesian approach network meta-analysis
Eur Heart J. 2014;35(17): doi: /eurheartj/eht570
Eur Heart J | Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author For permissions please

5. Figure 5 Definite or probable stent thrombosis with reference to bare metal stent. The squares and horizontal lines indicate odds ratios and their 95% credible intervals for definite or probable stent thrombosis estimated with multiple-treatment meta-analysis. All comparisons are presented with reference to bare metal stent. ST, stent thrombosis; BMS, bare metal stents; PES, paclitaxel-eluting stents; SES, sirolimus-eluting stents; ZES-E, endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stents; CoCr-EES, cobalt–chromium everolimus-eluting stents; PtCr-EES, platinum–chromium everolimus-eluting stents; ZES-R, resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents; BP-BES, biodegradable-polymer-biolimus-eluting stents.
From: Biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents vs. bare metal stents vs. durable-polymer drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and Bayesian approach network meta-analysis
Eur Heart J. 2014;35(17): doi: /eurheartj/eht570
Eur Heart J | Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author For permissions please

6. Figure 6 Definite stent thrombosis within 1 year
Figure 6 Definite stent thrombosis within 1 year. The squares and horizontal lines indicate pairwise odds ratios and their 95% credible intervals for definite stent thrombosis within 1 year estimated with multiple-treatment meta-analysis. BMS, bare metal stents; PES, paclitaxel-eluting stents; SES, sirolimus-eluting stents; ZES-E, endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stents; CoCr-EES, cobalt–chromium everolimus-eluting stents; PtCr-EES, platinum–chromium everolimus-eluting stents; ZES-R, resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents; BP-BES, biodegradable-polymer-biolimus-eluting stents.
From: Biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents vs. bare metal stents vs. durable-polymer drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and Bayesian approach network meta-analysis
Eur Heart J. 2014;35(17): doi: /eurheartj/eht570
Eur Heart J | Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author For permissions please

7. Figure 7 Consistency between direct and indirect estimates of stent thrombosis comparing (A) BP-BES vs. BMS and (B) CoCr-EES vs. BP-BES. BMS, bare metal stents; CoCr-EES, cobalt–chromium everolimus-eluting stents; BP-BES, biodegradable-polymer-biolimus-eluting stents; OR, odds ratio; SE, standard error.
From: Biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents vs. bare metal stents vs. durable-polymer drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and Bayesian approach network meta-analysis
Eur Heart J. 2014;35(17): doi: /eurheartj/eht570
Eur Heart J | Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author For permissions please

8. Figure 9 Myocardial infarction within 1 year
Figure 9 Myocardial infarction within 1 year. The squares and horizontal lines indicate pairwise odds ratios and their 95% credible intervals for myocardial infarction within 1 year estimated with multiple-treatment meta-analysis. BMS, bare metal stents; PES, paclitaxel-eluting stents; SES, sirolimus-eluting stents; ZES-E, endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stents; CoCr-EES, cobalt–chromium everolimus-eluting stents; PtCr-EES, platinum–chromium everolimus-eluting stents; ZES-R, resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents; BP-BES, biodegradable-polymer-biolimus-eluting stents.
From: Biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents vs. bare metal stents vs. durable-polymer drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and Bayesian approach network meta-analysis
Eur Heart J. 2014;35(17): doi: /eurheartj/eht570
Eur Heart J | Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author For permissions please

9. Figure 8 Target lesion revascularization within 1 year
Figure 8 Target lesion revascularization within 1 year. The squares and horizontal lines indicate pairwise odds ratios and their 95% credible intervals for target lesion revascularization within 1 year estimated with multiple-treatment meta-analysis. BMS, bare metal stents; PES, paclitaxel-eluting stents; SES, sirolimus-eluting stents; ZES-E, endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stents; CoCr-EES, cobalt–chromium everolimus-eluting stents; PtCr-EES, platinum–chromium everolimus-eluting stents; ZES-R, resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents; BP-BES, biodegradable-polymer-biolimus-eluting stents.
From: Biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents vs. bare metal stents vs. durable-polymer drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and Bayesian approach network meta-analysis
Eur Heart J. 2014;35(17): doi: /eurheartj/eht570
Eur Heart J | Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author For permissions please