SynthesisDrug design, development and therapy2019
Urapidil, compared to nitroglycerin, has better clinical safety in the treatment of hypertensive patients with acute heart failure: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Drug design, development and therapy, 2019. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of vasodilators for heart failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy of subretinal and intravitreal conbercept injections in polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Clinical Review of Hypertensive Acute Heart Failure.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Vasodilators for acute heart failure-A protocol for a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2022Article
- Blood Pressure Reduction in Hypertensive Acute Heart Failure.Current hypertension reports · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe application of urapidil for treating hypertensive patients with acute heart failure in the emergency department remains controversial. Our objective was to organize the relevant articles and assess the clinical indexes between urapidil and nitroglycerin. MATERIALS AND
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched for randomized studies that compared urapidil treatment with nitroglycerin treatment for hypertensive patients with acute heart failure. The risk ratio, with 95% CI, was calculated by using a corresponding effects model, according to the value of
resultsSeven randomized controlled trials were identified, in order to compare the clinical indexes. On comparing the clinical indexes, the urapidil group was found to be better than the nitroglycerin group in regard to left ventricular ejection fraction, systolic blood pressure, N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide, left ventricular end-diastolic volume, cardiac index, ALT, AST and health complications (
conclusionBased on the current evidence, urapidil treatment had better clinical safety features than the traditional pharmaceutical treatment with nitroglycerin. For those indicators with a small amount of data, a greater number of randomized, high-quality controlled trials should be conducted in order to further verify the findings, which could give researchers a more comprehensive evaluation of urapidil treatment.
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.