ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2016
Treatment effect of cyclosporine A in patients with painful bladder syndrome/interstitial cystitis: A systematic review.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2016. 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety comparison of pharmacotherapies for interstitial cystitis and bladder pain syndrome: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2021Pooled it
- Interventions for treating people with symptoms of bladder pain syndrome: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Management of Bladder Pain Syndrome (BPS): A Practical Guide.Advances in urology · 2022Review
- An update on treatment options for interstitial cystitis.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2020Review
- Inhibition of peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase B mediates cyclosporin A-induced apoptosis of islet β cells.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cyclosporine A (CyA) is emerging as a potential therapeutic strategy for painful bladder syndrome/interstitial cystitis (PBS/IC), which is currently an incurable disease. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the treatment effects of CyA in PBS/IC. Electronic and manual retrieval procedures were carried out to identify eligible references for the systematic review. The entire contents of the included articles were assessed, from study design to reported results. Eight studies, comprising three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), four prospective studies and one retrospective cohort study, were included, involving a total of 298 subjects. Meta-analysis was not implemented due to heterogeneity of the manner of reporting the outcome parameters. All studies reported an improvement in symptoms following treatment with CyA. The results of the three RCTs implied that the treatment effects of CyA were better than those of pentosan polysulfate sodium. Some adverse events, for example, elevation of serum creatinine levels and an increase in blood pressure, were noted in five studies. In conclusion, the evidence from the studies implied that treatment of CyA can result in a long-term benefit in patients of PBS/IC; however, further evidence is required to verify this.
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.