Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25709661›Full record

ReviewJournal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences2014

Efficacy of valganciclovir and ganciclovir for cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplants: A meta-analysis.

Siavash Vaziri, Zohre Pezhman, Babak Sayyad, Feizolla Mansouri, Alireza Janbakhsh, Mandana Afsharian, Farid Najafi

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02761291 (Phase I Study of Cytolytic Viral Activation Therapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02761291 phase1unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Phase I Study of Cytolytic Viral Activation Therapy (CVAT) for Recurrent/Metastatic Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

TypeinterventionalSponsorChang Gung Memorial HospitalRan2016Enrolled18ConditionsNasopharyngeal CarcinomaArmsGemcitabine, Valproic acid, Valganciclovir
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Siavash VaziriKermanshah Liver Disease and Hepatitis Research Center, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Zohre PezhmanKermanshah Liver Disease and Hepatitis Research Center, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Babak SayyadKermanshah Liver Disease and Hepatitis Research Center, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Feizolla MansouriKermanshah Liver Disease and Hepatitis Research Center, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Alireza JanbakhshKermanshah Liver Disease and Hepatitis Research Center, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Mandana AfsharianKermanshah Liver Disease and Hepatitis Research Center, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Farid NajafiResearch Center for Environmental Determinants of Health (RCEDH), Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCytomegalovirus (CMV), a problematic virus in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) such as liver, can worsen overall mortality and transplant outcome, so its prevention and treatment is a key of success in such patients. This study is aimed to compare the efficacy of ganciclovir (GCV) and valganciclovir (VGC) for prevention and treatment of infection with CMV. MATERIALS AND

methodsAfter sensitive and systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and other available databases, both prospective and retrospective studies on effect of VGC and GCV in prevention and treatment of CMV disease among SOTR, which had our study criteria, were included. The pooled risk estimates were calculated using random-effects models.

resultsAmong 1324 title, 19 studies were included. In 11 prophylactic studies (2368 patients), the pooled risk of CMV disease (VGC relative to GCV) was 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91-1.49 and in studies of liver transplant recipients, 1.53, 95% CI: 0.86-2.70. Rate of viremia eradication in VGC to GCV was 1.05, 95% CI: 0.97-1.13. In 3 treatment studies (422 patients), rate of successful treatment in VGC to GCV was 0.98, 95% CI: 0.91-1.06 and viremia eradication 0.95, CI 95% 0.77-1.16. All these values did not show statistically significantly differences between GCV and VGC.

conclusionIt can be concluded that VGC as an alternative to GCV can be used with equal efficacy in prevention and treatment of CMV disease in SOTR.

Indexed as

Cytomegalovirusmeta-analysissolid organsvalganciclovir

Identifiers

PMID25709661
PMCPMC4333528
OpenAlexW2124753212

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

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.