Erratum to: SGLT2 Inhibition and cardiovascular events: why did EMPA-REG Outcomes surprise and what were the likely mechanisms?

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Cardiologist and Diabetologist crosstalk in the era of cardiovascular outcome trials of novel glucose-lowering drugs.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2018
   Review
2. Continued efforts to translate diabetes cardiovascular outcome trials into clinical practice.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2016
   Review
3. A comprehensive review of the novel therapeutic targets for the treatment of diabetic cardiomyopathy.Therapeutic advances in cardiovascular disease
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  SGLT2 Inhibition and cardiovascular events: why did EMPA-REG Outcomes surprise and what were the likely mechanisms?2016

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.