ReviewActa bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis2023
Real life use of prostacyclin analog (iloprost), a multi-centric survey data from the Scleroderma study group Emilia Romagna (Sclero-RER) and review of the literature.
Review in Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimIloprost is recommend worldwide for the treatment of RP and the healing of DUs. The aim of this study is to report the regimens of Iloprost administered in different rheumatological centers within the same regional Health System Methods: A questionnaire exploring different items related to the use of Iloprost was developed and reviewed by three expert rheumatologists. The questionnaire was distributed as an online survey to all local SSc referral centers in Emilia-Romagna (Italy). Data are reported as percentage or median with interquartile range (IQR), as appropriate. An updated review of world literature on this topic was also carried out.
resultsAll the invited centers completed the survey. There were both local (8) and university hospitals (4). The majority (58%) had a rheumatologist as head physician. All centers used Iloprost: a single monthly administration was the most common treatment (75%). The cycle lasted 1 [IQR 1-2] days with a 0.5-2.0 ng/Kg/min dose according to the drug tolerance of the patients. There were overall 68 spots (beds, reclining armchair, or simple armchair); 2.0 [1.5-4.0] patients were able to receive Iloprost at the same time. University Hospitals had more physicians at their disposal than local hospitals but less paramedic personnel (respectively: 1.8 vs 1.2 physicians, 1.5 vs 2.1 nurses).
conclusionsThese observations were in line with the majority of previous studies reporting different regimens, comparing similar (but not identical) dose and schedule administration, however, despite differences being at times substantial, no standard infusion method is yet available.
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.