ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2018
Efficacy and Safety of Cyclosporine in Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical features and effects of cyclosporine in the treatment of psoriasis: a systemic review and meta-analysis.Archives of dermatological research · 2024Pooled it
- Review
- Identification of key genes associated with cellular aging and mitochondria in acute myocardial infarction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Protective effects of cyclosporine and its analog NIM-811 in a murine model of hepatic ischemia-reperfusion injury.Liver research (Beijing, China) · 2024Article
- The impact of the use of immunosuppressive treatment after an embryo transfer in increasing the rate of live birth.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
- Interaction of Cardiovascular Nonmodifiable Risk Factors, Comorbidities and Comedications With Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury and Cardioprotection by Pharmacological Treatments and Ischemic Conditioning.Pharmacological reviews · 2023Review
- What is responsible for acute myocardial infarction in combination with aplastic anemia? A case report and literature review.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
- Widespread intracoronary allogeneic cardiosphere-derived cell therapy with and without cyclosporine in reperfused myocardial infarction.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2022Article
- Review
- Inhibition of miR-153 ameliorates ischemia/reperfusion-induced cardiomyocytes apoptosis by regulating Nrf2/HO-1 signaling in rats.Biomedical engineering online · 2020Article
- Article
- Microvascular Obstruction in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Looking Back to Move Forward. Focus on CMR.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Review
- Mitochondria-targeted cyclosporin A delivery system to treat myocardial ischemia reperfusion injury of rats.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are various studies that have addressed the use of Cyclosporine among patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, to date there is hardly any concise and systematically structured evidence that debate on the efficacy and safety of Cyclosporine in AMI patients. The aim of this review is to systematically summarize the overall evidence from published trials, and to conduct a meta-analysis in order to determine the efficacy and safety of Cyclosporine vs. placebo or control among patients with AMI. All randomized control trial (RCT) published in English language from January 2000 to August 2017 were included for the systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of six RCTs met the inclusion and were hence included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Based on the performed meta-analysis, no significant difference was found between Cyclosporine and placebo in terms of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement (mean difference 1.88; 95% CI -0.99 to 4.74;
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.