ReviewCurrent atherosclerosis reports2017
What We Learned with Recent Network Meta-analyses on Atherosclerosis Prevention and Treatment.
Review in Current atherosclerosis reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Lipid-based gene delivery to macrophage mitochondria for atherosclerosis therapy.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2020Review
- Lipoprotein(a) the Insurgent: A New Insight into the Structure, Function, Metabolism, Pathogenicity, and Medications Affecting Lipoprotein(a) Molecule.Journal of lipids · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe management of atherosclerosis requires a complex integration of the knowledge on its pathophysiology, patient values, and the synthesis of the global scientific evidence informing on its prevention and treatment. Novel statistical methods such as umbrella reviews and network meta-analyses (NMAs) offer a unique opportunity for integrating different sources of evidence stemming from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or internally valid observational studies. We aimed to provide an updated perspective on the most important contributions of recent network meta-analyses on atherosclerosis prevention and treatment. RECENT
findingsWe identified and appraised in detail 9 NMAs on atherosclerosis prevention, all published in 2016, whereas a total of 12 NMAs on atherosclerosis treatment published between 2014 and 2016 were identified. Most NMAs focused on RCTs only, with primary prevention analyses including on average more trials and patients than those focusing on secondary prevention. In most cases, conclusive findings for clinically relevant outcomes could be provided. Yet, several inconclusive findings were reported, suggesting thus that NMAs can also guide new research by emphasizing where new evidence is most needed. NMAs provide a unique opportunity for poignant synthesis of high-quality evidence. In particular, they seem particularly promising when the evidence base has reached a sufficient level of maturity, and several competing interventions require comprehensive and comparative risk-benefit appraisal.
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.