Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29720510›Full record

ReviewEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society2018

Efficacy and safety profile of xanthines in COPD: a network meta-analysis.

Mario Cazzola, Luigino Calzetta, Peter J Barnes, Gerard J Criner, Fernando J Martinez, Alberto Papi, Maria Gabriella Matera

Open access · diamondAbstract readReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Review in European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Mario CazzolaDept of Experimental Medicine and Surgery, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Luigino CalzettaDept of Experimental Medicine and Surgery, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Peter J BarnesAirway Disease Section, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, UK.
Gerard J CrinerDept of Thoracic Medicine and Surgery, Temple Lung Center, Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Fernando J MartinezJoan and Sanford I. Weill Dept of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York - Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Alberto PapiDept of Internal and Cardiorespiratory Medicine, Research Center on Asthma and COPD, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
Maria Gabriella MateraDept of Experimental Medicine, Unit of Pharmacology, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy.
University of Rome Tor Vergata · ITCornell University · USImperial College London · GBTemple University · USUniversity of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" · ITUniversity of Ferrara · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Theophylline can still have a role in the management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but its use remains controversial, mainly due to its narrow therapeutic window. Doxofylline, another xanthine, is an effective bronchodilator and displays a better safety profile than theophylline. Therefore, we performed a quantitative synthesis to compare the efficacy and safety profile of different xanthines in COPD.The primary end-point of this meta-analysis was the impact of xanthines on lung function. In addition, we assessed the risk of adverse events by normalising data on safety as a function of person-weeks. Data obtained from 998 COPD patients were selected from 14 studies and meta-analysed using a network approach.The combined surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) analysis of efficacy (change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s) and safety (risk of adverse events) showed that doxofylline was superior to aminophylline (comparable efficacy and significantly better safety), bamiphylline (significantly better efficacy and comparable safety), and theophylline (comparable efficacy and significantly better safety).Considering the overall efficacy/safety profile of the investigated agents, the results of this quantitative synthesis suggest that doxofylline seems to be the best xanthine for the treatment of COPD.

Indexed as

Bronchodilator AgentsForced Expiratory VolumeHumansLungPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveRecovery of FunctionTheophyllineTreatment OutcomeXanthinesbamifyllineBronchodilator AgentsdoxofyllineenprofyllineTheophyllineXanthines

Identifiers

PMID29720510
PMCPMC9488859
OpenAlexW2800502572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.