Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36149378›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2022

Appetite stimulants for people with cystic fibrosis.

Diane McTavish, Judith Thornton

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Diane McTavishAdult Cystic Fibrosis Unit, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
Judith ThorntonCentre for Clinical Practice, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Manchester, UK.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence · GBQueen Elizabeth University Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic loss of appetite in cystic fibrosis concerns both individuals and families. Appetite stimulants have been used to help cystic fibrosis patients with chronic anorexia attain optimal body mass index (BMI) and nutritional status. However, these may have adverse effects on clinical status. This is an updated version of the original review.

objectivesTo systematically search for and evaluate the evidence on the beneficial effects of appetite stimulants in the management of cystic fibrosis-related anorexia and synthesise reports of any side effects. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register and online trials registries; handsearched reference lists; and contacted local and international experts to identify relevant trials. Last search of the Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 23 May 2022. Last search of online trial registries: 10 May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of appetite stimulants compared to placebo, control, no treatment or different appetite stimulants, or to the same appetite stimulants at different doses or regimens for at least one month in adults and children with cystic fibrosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included trials. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and performed meta-analyses. MAIN

resultsWe included four trials (70 participants) comparing appetite stimulants (cyproheptadine hydrochloride and megestrol acetate) to placebo; the numbers of adults or children within each trial were not always reported. We assessed the certainty of evidence as low due to the small number of participants, incomplete or selective outcome reporting, and unclear risk of selection bias.  Regarding our primary outcomes, a meta-analysis of two trials (42 participants) showed that appetite stimulants may produce a larger increase in weight (kg) at three months (mean difference (MD) 1.25 kg, 95% confidence interval (Cl) 0.45 to 2.05), and one trial (17 participants) showed a similar result at six months (MD 3.80 kg, 95% CI 1.27 to 6.33) (both low-certainty evidence). Results also showed that weight z score may increase with appetite stimulants compared to placebo at three months (MD 0.61, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.93; 3 studies; 40 participants; P < 0.001) and at six months (MD 0.74, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.22; 1 trial; 17 participants). There was no evidence of a difference in effect between cyproheptadine hydrochloride and megestrol acetate for either outcome.   Only one trial (25 participants) reported analysable data for body composition (BMI), with results favouring cyproheptadine hydrochloride compared to placebo; a further trial (16 participants) narratively agreed with this result. All four trials reported on lung function at durations ranging from two to nine months. Considering analysable data, two trials (42 participants) found that appetite stimulants may make little or no difference in forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV

Indexed as

Cystic FibrosisAdultAnorexiaAnti-Bacterial AgentsAppetite StimulantsChildCyproheptadineHumansMegestrol AcetateQuality of LifeAnti-Bacterial AgentsAppetite StimulantsCyproheptadineMegestrol Acetate

Identifiers

PMID36149378
PMCPMC9504874
OpenAlexW4296794351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.