Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27478734›Full record

ArticleSpringerPlus2016

Clinical effects of cyclosporine A on reperfusion injury in myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Chen Yingzhong, Cai Lin, Wang Chunbin

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in SpringerPlus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Biomarkers of Oxidative Stress Tethered to Cardiovascular Diseases.Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2022
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chen YingzhongCardiovascular Disease Research Institute, The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu, The Second Affiliated Chengdu Clinical College of Chongqing Medical University, Sichuan, China.
Cai LinCardiovascular Disease Research Institute, The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu, The Second Affiliated Chengdu Clinical College of Chongqing Medical University, Sichuan, China.
Wang ChunbinCardiovascular Disease Research Institute, The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu, The Second Affiliated Chengdu Clinical College of Chongqing Medical University, Sichuan, China ; Department of Cardiology, The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu, Chengdu, 610031 Sichuan China.
Chongqing Medical University · CNChengdu Third People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reperfusion therapy is the most crucial strategy for rescuing ischemic myocardium and reducing infarction size. Cyclosporine A (CsA) can protect against reperfusion-induced myocardial necrosis. However, the clinical effects of CsA on myocardial infarction (MI) remain uncertain. This study investigated the effects of CsA on reperfusion injury (RI) in MI. We searched for and included articles regarding randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of CsA in patients with MI from PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for an analysis. We then performed quality assessment, subgroup, sensitivity, and publication bias analyses. Of the 277 potentially relevant articles retrieved from the databases, only five were eligible for our meta-analysis. Compared with the placebos used in these studies, CsA did not reduce all-cause mortality [rate ratio (RR) 1.10, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.61; P = 0.533; I (2) = 0 %) or adverse clinical events (RR 1.0, 95 % CI 0.89-1.13; P = 0.381; I (2) = 6.5 %). In the CsA treatment groups, improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (weighted mean difference = 1.91; 95 % CI 0.89, 2.92; P = 0.064) and reduction in MI size (standard mean difference = -0.41, 95 % CI -0.84 to 0.02; P = 0.519; I (2) = 0.0 %) were minimal. The current meta-analysis indicates that CsA treatment does not reduce all-cause mortality and adverse clinical events in MI and that CsA may not have significant clinical effects on RI in MI.

Indexed as

Cyclosporine ADrug therapyMyocardial infarction

Identifiers

PMID27478734
PMCPMC4949180
OpenAlexW2501731094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.