Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37740617›Full record

SynthesisAnimal models and experimental medicine2024

Comparing the efficacy and safety of low, medium, and high dosages of selexipag for treating pulmonary hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Shang Wang, Yi Yan, Jian Zhang, Ping Yuan, Ci-Jun Luo, Hong-Ling Qiu, Hui-Ting Li, Jian Xu, Lan Wang, Tian-Lan Li and 1 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Animal models and experimental medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Shang WangDepartment of Cardio-Pulmonary Circulation, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Yi YanHeart Center and Shanghai Institute of Pediatric Congenital Heart Disease, Shanghai Children's Medical Center, National Children's Medical Center, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2860-3252
Jian ZhangDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The 416 Hospital of Nuclear Industry, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, China.
Ping YuanDepartment of Cardio-Pulmonary Circulation, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5096-4850
Ci-Jun LuoDepartment of Cardio-Pulmonary Circulation, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Hong-Ling QiuDepartment of Cardio-Pulmonary Circulation, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Hui-Ting LiDepartment of Cardio-Pulmonary Circulation, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Jian XuDepartment of Cardio-Pulmonary Circulation, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Lan WangDepartment of Cardio-Pulmonary Circulation, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Tian-Lan LiDepartment of Hematology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Rong JiangDepartment of Cardio-Pulmonary Circulation, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4062-5550
Tongji University · CNChina National Nuclear Corporation · CNQingdao University · CNShanghai Children's Medical Center · CN

Funding

Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China 81700045Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China 81870042Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China 82200065The Department Development Fund of Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital 201906-0314The Program of Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital FKLY20011The Three-year Action Plan to Promote Clinical Skills and Clinical Innovation in Municipal Hospitals SHDC2020CR4021Young Talent Program of Shanghai Municipal Health Commission 2022YQ070
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe maintenance dosage of selexipag is categorized as low, medium or high. In order to assess the efficacy and safety of different dosages of selexipag for the risk stratification of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis.

methodsStudies assessing PAH risk stratification indices, such as the World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC), six-minute walk distance (6MWD), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level, right atrial pressure (RAP), cardiac index (CI) and mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO

resultsThirteen studies were included. Selexipag led to improvements in the 6MWD (MD: 24.20 m, 95% CI: 10.74-37.67), NT-proBNP (SMD: -0.41, 95% CI: -0.79-0.04), CI (MD: 0.47 L/min/m

conclusionsLow, medium, and high dosages of selexipag all exhibited good effects. When treatment lasted for more than 6 months, selexipag exerted obvious effects, even in the low-dosage group. This finding is important for guiding individualized treatments.

Indexed as

AcetamidesHypertension, PulmonaryPyrazinesAnimalsAntihypertensive AgentsDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansPeptide FragmentsTreatment OutcomeAcetamidesAntihypertensive AgentsPeptide FragmentsPyrazinesselexipagindividualized treatmentsmeta‐analysisprostacyclin receptor agonistrisk stratificationsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37740617
PMCPMC10961888
OpenAlexW4386979792

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.