SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2014
Prostanoid therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension: a meta-analysis of survival outcomes.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Overview of Systematic Reviews on Treatments for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Assessing Methodological Quality and Mapping Evidence Gaps.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2025Pooled it
- Evidence synthesis in pulmonary arterial hypertension: a systematic review and critical appraisal.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Additional Use of Prostacyclin Analogs in Patients With Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
- The Role of G Protein-Coupled Receptors in the Right Ventricle in Pulmonary Hypertension.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2018Review
- Prostanoid therapies in the management of pulmonary arterial hypertension.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProstanoids have played an important role in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). However, whether prostanoid therapy provides a survival advantage is still not clear. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prostanoids in PAH, focusing on the improvement in overall survival.
methodsTrials were identified from the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PUBMED databases. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and weighted mean differences with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data.
resultsFourteen trials with a total of 2,244 adult patients (1,189 patients in the prostanoid treatment group and 1,055 patients in the placebo group) were included in the meta-analysis. All-cause mortality rate in the control group was 4.17 %. In a 13.4-week follow-up, prostanoid treatment was associated with a 44 % reduction in mortality (RR 0.56; 95 % CI 0.35-0.88; P = 0.01).Subgroup analysis suggested that only treatment with intravenous prostanoids provided a survival benefit. Compared with placebo, prostanoids significantly reduced clinical worsening (RR 0.60; 95 % CI 0.46-0.80; P = 0.0003), increased the 6-min walk distance by 27.95 m, reduced mean pulmonary arterial pressure and pulmonary vascular resistance, and increased the cardiac index and mixed venous oxygen saturation. However, patients receiving prostanoid treatment showed a much higher incidence (RR 3.25; 95 % CI 2.07-5.10; P<0.00001) of withdrawal due to its adverse effects.
conclusionThe results of this meta-analysis suggest that treatment with prostanoids improves the survival of patients with PAH.
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.