SynthesisBlood pressure2011
Efficacy and safety profiles of manidipine compared with amlodipine: a meta-analysis of head-to-head trials.
Synthesis in Blood pressure, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03106597 (Manidipine Versus Amlodipine in Patients With Hypertension), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Manidipine Versus Amlodipine in Patients With Hypertension: Effects on Peripheral Edema Evaluated by Bioimpedance Analysis
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of manidipine vs. amlodipine on intrarenal haemodynamics in patients with arterial hypertension.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2013Trial
- Effects of manidipine and its combination with an ACE inhibitor on insulin sensitivity and metabolic, inflammatory and prothrombotic markers in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome: the MARCADOR study.Clinical drug investigation · 2011Trial
- Manidipine: an antihypertensive drug with positive effects on metabolic parameters and adrenergic tone in patients with diabetes.Drugs in context · 2018Review
- Gabapentin induces edema, hyperesthesia and scaling in a depressed patient; a diagnostic challenge.Advanced biomedical research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety profile of manidipine 20 mg with that of amlodipine 10 mg. A systematic research of quantitative data produced or published between 1995 and 2009 was performed. Head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of 12 months minimum duration reporting comparative efficacy (changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure) and safety (total adverse events and ankle oedema), were included. Four high-quality RCTs, accounting for 838 patients (436 received manidipine and 402 received amlodipine) were included. The efficacy of manidipine and amlodipine was statistically equivalent: effect size for DBP = -0.08 (p = 0.22) and SBP = -0.01 (p = 0.83). The global safety of manidipine was significantly better than amlodipine: the relative risk (RR) for adverse event was 0.69 (0.56-0.85), and particularly for ankle oedema RR was 0.35 (0.22-0.54). Publication bias was not significant and the robustness of the analyses was good. These data suggest a better efficacy/safety ratio of manidipine over amlodipine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.