SynthesisClinical rheumatology2020
Evaluation of urate-lowering therapy in hyperuricemia patients: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Clinical rheumatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of urate-lowering therapies in asymptomatic hyperuricaemia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of key clinical outcomes.Annals of medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative effect of allopurinol and febuxostat on long-term renal outcomes in patients with hyperuricemia and chronic kidney disease: a systematic review.Clinical rheumatology · 2020Pooled it
- Article
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
Abstract
objectiveHyperuricemia is a strong precursor of gout, which deteriorates patients' health and quality of life. Sustained adherence to urate-lowering therapies (ULTs) is crucial for efficacy and therapeutic cost-effectiveness. Recently, several new ULTs have been proposed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to reassess the efficacy and safety of the current ULTs, focusing on adherence attrition-related adverse event reporting.
methodThe Bayesian network meta-analysis was applied to compare ULTs. Drug efficacy and safety were measured by whether the target level of serum urate acid was achieved and whether any adverse events occurred. The results were summarized using the pooled estimates of effect sizes (odds ratios), their precisions (95% credible interval), and the ranking probabilities. RESULTS AND
conclusionsThirty-nine RCTs were identified, accumulating 19,401 patients. Consistent with previous studies, febuxostat (≥ 40 mg/day) was superior to other monoagent ULTs. The new findings were as follows: (i) dual-agent ULTs were superior to febuxostat alone, and further surveillance on the adverse effects when lesinurad is uptitrated is needed, and (ii) terminalia bellerica 500 mg/day, a novel xanthine oxidase inhibitor (XOI) made of natural fruit extracts, and topiroxostat ≥ 80 mg/day, an XOI used mostly in Japan, could be new effective options for lowering the occurrence of adherence attrition events. Evidence from RCTs regarding second-line agents, such as probenecid and pegloticase, remains insufficient for clinical decision-making.Key Points• Dual-agent ULTs were superior to febuxostat alone, and further surveillance on the adverse-effects when lesinurad is uptitrated is needed.• Terminalia bellerica 500 mg/day, a novel xanthine oxidase inhibitor (XOI) made of natural fruit extracts, and topiroxostat 80 mg/day, an XOI used mostly in Japan, could be new effective options for lowering the occurrence of adherence attrition events.
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.