ReviewIranian Red Crescent medical journal2014
Comparison of bypassing agents in bleeding reduction in treatment of bleeding episodes in patients with haemophilia and inhibitors.
Review in Iranian Red Crescent medical journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biogeneric Recombinant Activated Factor VII (AryoSeven™) and Activated Prothrombin Complex Concentrates (FEIBA™) to Treat Hemophilia A Patients with Inhibitors in Iran.Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPR · 2016Article
- Analysis of Provincial Mortalities Among Bus/Minibus Users Over Twelve Years, East Azerbaijan, Iran.Journal of medicine and lifeArticle
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextMild-to-moderate bleeding disorders in haemophilia are primarily treated via recombinant activated factor VII a (rFVIIa) or activated prothrombin complex concentrate (aPCC). However, the efficacy of each bypassing agents may vary and none of them is universally effective. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: After reviewing the databases of PubMed, Scopus, MD Consult, Ovid, Trip database, Google Scholar, ProQuest and the Cochrane Library, finally, 17 papers published from 2000 to 2013 were extracted. We used as a random effect model in meta-analysis. Comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA) software was used for calculating and estimating the mean of bleeding reduction and performing meta-analysis.
resultsThe mean of bleeding reduction in aPCC and rFVIIa were 71.2% with CI 95% (lower limit 86.8% and upper limit 82%) and 72.3% with CI 95% (lower limit 57.6% and upper limit 83.4%), respectively.
conclusionsAlthough differences between the two products were very close to each other, they reported similar effects on joint bleeds. Further clinical studies should be performed by incorporating a standardized measurement in comparative efficacy of aPCC and rFVIIa.
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.