ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2020
Paricalcitol vs. cinacalcet for secondary hyperparathyroidism in chronic kidney disease: A meta-analysis.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical value of serum iPTH, ALP and serum markers levels in patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism receiving paricalcitol combined with cinacalcet.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2025Article
- Effects of active vitamin D analogs and calcimimetic agents on PTH and bone mineral biomarkers in hemodialysis patients with SHPT: a network meta-analysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Paricalcitol and cinacalcet have been recommended to reduce parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels for patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) and chronic kidney disease (CKD), and they are able to reduce the risk of hypercalcemia and hyperphosphatemia. However, to date, it has remained uncertain which is the better drug. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects on PTH, calcium and phosphorus metabolism between the two drugs. The PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase databases were searched from inception to June 1, 2019 and eligible studies comparing paricalcitol and cinacalcet for SHPT were included. Data were analysed using Review Manager version 5.3. A total of 7 trials from six articles, comprising 456 patients in the paricalcitol group and 412 patients in the cinacalcet group, were included in the meta-analysis. There were no differences in PTH levels [mean difference (MD): 71.82, 95% CI: -185.20-328.85, P=0.58] and phosphorus levels (standard MD: 0.59, 95% CI: -0.82-2.00, P=0.41). The calcium levels in the paricalcitol group were significantly higher than those in the cinacalcet group (MD: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.92-1.28, P<0.05). In conclusion, paricalcitol and cinacalcet exhibited no difference in their efficacy to control of PTH levels, as they were similarly effective in decreasing the PTH levels. They also had comparable efficacy in the management of phosphorus levels. However, cinacalcet produced a significantly greater reduction in serum calcium levels. More large multicentre randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm the conclusions of the present analysis.
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.