SynthesisBMJ clinical evidence2010
Altitude sickness.
Synthesis in BMJ clinical evidence, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mountain sickness in altitude inhabitants of Latin America: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Interventions for treating acute high altitude illness.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Intelligent monitoring and individualized strategies for preventing altitude sickness during altitude training.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Review
- Promising Natural Medicines for the Treatment of High-Altitude Illness.High altitude medicine & biology · 2023Review
- A study of survival strategies for improving acclimatization of lowlanders at high-altitude.Heliyon · 2023Review
- The role of iron repletion in adult iron deficiency anemia and other diseases.European journal of haematology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUp to half of people who ascend to heights above 2500 m may develop acute mountain sickness, pulmonary oedema, or cerebral oedema, with the risk being greater at higher altitudes, and with faster rates of ascent. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent, and to treat, acute mountain sickness? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
resultsWe found 17 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
conclusionsIn this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acetazolamide, descent versus resting, dexamethasone, gingko biloba, and slow ascent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21718562PMC2907615W4301456472What 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.