ReviewCureus2023
Independent Predictors of Mortality in Systemic Sclerosis-Associated Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of PAH Specific Treatment Is Comparable Between PAH Associated With Connective Tissue Disease and Idiopathic PAH: Data From the Multicentre National Registry.Pulmonary circulation · 2026Article
- Association of initial diagnostic setting and referral delay with mortality in systemic sclerosis: a nationwide database cohort study.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Sex Bias in Systemic Sclerosis: from Clinical to Immunological Differences.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2025Review
- Sex differences in systemic sclerosis: from pathogenesis to clinical manifestations and treatment.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2025Review
- Protein profiling in systemic sclerosis patients with different pulmonary complications using proteomic antibody microarray.Arthritis research & therapy · 2024Article
- The predictive role of the TAPSE/sPAP ratio for cardiovascular events and mortality in systemic sclerosis with pulmonary hypertension.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to determine the predictors of mortality in patients with systemic sclerosis-induced pulmonary arterial hypertension (SSc-PAH). This systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) Statement guidelines. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases from January 2010 to April 2023 using the following keywords: "systemic sclerosis," "pulmonary arterial hypertension," "death," and "predictors," along with medical subject headings (MeSH), to identify relevant studies. A total of eight studies with a total of 530 patients were included in the present systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled one-year, three-year, and five-year survival was 90% (95% CI: 86-93%), 66% (95% CI: 59-72%), and 44% (95% CI: 23-65%), respectively. Factors associated with mortality in SSc-PAH included age (p-value: 0.02), male gender (p-value: 0.008), pericardial effusion (p-value: 0.003), cardiac index (p-value: 0.0001), six-minute walking distance (p-value: 0.04), pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP) (p-value: 0.01), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification (p-value: 0.0002). The findings of this study have important clinical implications. Assessing and managing the identified predictors, such as age, gender, pericardial effusion, PAP, cardiac index, and NYHA class, could help identify individuals at higher risk of mortality and guide treatment strategies.
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.