SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2018
Isosorbide and nifedipine for Chagas' megaesophagus: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neuroprotective Treatments for Digestive Forms of Chagas Disease in Experimental Models: A Systematic Review.Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2022Pooled it
- Chagasic Esophagopathy With Achalasia and Megaesophagus: A Case Report.Case reports in infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Molecular diagnosis of Chagas disease in patients with megaesophagus exhibiting negative or inconclusive serological results.Frontiers in parasitology · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Non-conventional Achalasia Treatment Modalities.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- Molecular and Clinical Aspects of Chronic Manifestations in Chagas Disease: A State-of-the-Art Review.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Management of Esophageal Dysphagia in Chagas Disease.Dysphagia · 2021Review
- Identification ofMicroorganisms · 2021Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChagas disease is a neglected tropical disease. About 6 to 8 million people are chronically infected and 10% to 15% develop irreversible gastrointestinal disorders, including megaesophagus. Treatment focuses on improving symptoms, and isosorbide and nifedipine may be used for this purpose. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacological treatment for Chagas' megaesophagus. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS databases up to January 2018. We included both observational studies and RCTs evaluating the effects of isosorbide or nifedipine in adult patients with Chagas' megaesophagus. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts, selected eligible studies and extracted data. We assessed the risk of bias using NIH 'Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies with No Control Group' and RoB 2.0 tool. Overall quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. PRINCIPAL
findingsWe included eight studies (four crossover RCTs, four before-after studies). Three studies evaluated the effect of isosorbide on lower esophageal sphincter pressure (LESP), showing a significant reduction (mean difference -10.52mmHg, 95%CI -13.57 to-7.47, very low quality of evidence). Three studies reported the effect of isosorbide on esophageal emptying, showing a decrease in esophageal retention rates (mean difference -22.16%, 95%CI -29.94 to -14.38, low quality of evidence). In one study, patients on isosorbide reported improvement in the frequency and severity of dysphagia (moderate quality of evidence). Studies evaluating nifedipine observed a decrease in LESP but no effect on esophageal emptying (very low and low quality of evidence, respectively). Isosorbide had a higher incidence of headache as a side effect than nifedipine.
conclusionsAlthough limited, available evidence shows that both isosorbide and nifedipine are effective in reducing esophageal symptoms. Isosorbide appears to be more effective, and its use is supported by a larger number of studies; nifedipine, however, appears to have a better tolerability profile.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42017055143. ClinicalTrials.gov CRD42017055143.
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.