SynthesisBMC nephrology2017
Comparative efficacy and safety of paricalcitol versus vitamin D receptor activators for dialysis patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC nephrology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Intravenous Paricalcitol Versus Calcitriol for Secondary Hyperparathyroidism in Maintenance Hemodialysis: A Six-Month Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Active Vitamin D in Chronic Kidney Disease: Getting Right Back Where We Started from?Kidney diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Evidence basis for integrated management of mineral metabolism in patients with end-stage renal disease.Current opinion in nephrology and hypertension · 2018Review
- Vitamin D Receptor: A Novel Therapeutic Target for Kidney Diseases.Current medicinal chemistry · 2018Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSecondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) is a severe complication for dialysis patients. Vitamin D receptor activators (VDRAs) are used to treat SHPT, but the comparative efficacy and safety between paricalcitol and other vitamin D receptor activators for management of SHPT in dialysis patients has been unproven.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for the time period through June 2017 to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluated paricalcitol compared with other VDRAs for treatment of SHPT. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with target reduction of intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) from baseline. Secondary outcomes included incidences of hypercalcemia and hyperphosphatemia. The random-effects model was used to estimate relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsEight studies (N = 759) were eligible for final inclusion. Compared with other VDRAs, no significant differences were found in the percentage of patients with target reduction of intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) from baseline for paricalcitol treatment of SHPT in dialysis patients (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0. 87-1.18; p = 0.85). There were no differences in the incidence of hypercalcemia (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74-1.21; p = 0. 65) and hyperphosphatemia (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77-1.16; p = 0.58).
conclusionsThe presently available evidence is insufficient to draw a conclusion regarding whether paricalcitol therapy has a comparative efficacy and safety over other VDRAs for treating dialysis patients with SHPT. Large-sample, well-conducted, high-quality RCTs with patient-level outcomes (i.e., mortality) are urgently needed.
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.