ReviewPneumonia (Nathan Qld.)2018
Cilostazol for the prevention of pneumonia: a systematic review.
Review in Pneumonia (Nathan Qld.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Cilostazol Administration on Prevention of Aspiration Pneumonia in Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia.Circulation reports · 2024Article
- Cilostazol versus Aspirin or Clopidogrel for Reducing Post-Stroke Aspiration Pneumonia: A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study.Cerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Bioactive Compounds ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Could cilostazol be beneficial in COVID-19 treatment? Thinking about phosphodiesterase-3 as a therapeutic target.International immunopharmacology · 2021Review
- Cilostazol for the prevention of pneumonia: a systematic review.Pneumonia (Nathan Qld.) · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPneumonia is a very common disease, especially among the elderly. Various drugs' preventive effects against pneumonia have been reported. The antiplatelet drug cilostazol is used to prevent pneumonia, but the robustness of its efficacy is unclear. This review estimates the effectiveness of cilostazol for preventing pneumonia in elderly individuals.
methodsThe following databases were searched from the earliest record to January 2016, without language restriction (the secondary search was conducted on February 2017): MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Ichushi-Web. Studies were included if they were published randomized controlled trials investigating the preventive effect of cilostazol on pneumonia in the elderly. The outcome was the incidence of pneumonia.
resultsTwo trials were identified that met the search criteria (1423 participants). Both trials compared cilostazol with no antiplatelet in patients with a history of cerebral infarction. A meta-analysis was not performed because of the small number of trials and the heterogeneity of the data. Both trials suggested that cilostazol reduced the incidence of pneumonia (risk ratio [RR] 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22-0.73 in one trial, RR 0.20; 95% CI 0.06-0.69 in the other) and the recurrence of cerebral infarction (0.43; 0.21-0.90, 0.53; 0.34-0.81, respectively). The quality of evidence provided by the trials was very low, mainly because of the high risk of bias.
conclusionsIt is difficult to draw conclusions on the basis of two trials. Moreover, in the two trials, cilostazol could have reduced the incidence of pneumonia via a reduction of the recurrence of cerebral infarction, which suggests that other antiplatelets could also have the same effects. Stronger evidence is required from large trials assessing the effectiveness of cilostazol for the prevention of pneumonia.
trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD42016036724).
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.