ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2023
Should We "RESPECT EPA" More Now? EPA and DHA for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dietary Omega-3 PUFAs in Metabolic Disease Research: A Decade of Omics-Enabled Insights (2014-2024).Nutrients · 2025Pooled it
- The differential effects of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid on cardiovascular risk factors: an updated systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Pooled it
- Plasma fatty acid composition modifies the cardiovascular risk of long-term PMLipids in health and disease · 2026Article
- Recent advances in crocodilian oil research: bioactive components and potential therapeutic applications.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Targeting immune cell recruitment in atherosclerosis.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2024Review
- Discrimination between the Triglyceride Form and the Ethyl Ester Form of Fish Oil Using Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThere has been much debate surrounding the use of omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), for cardiovascular (CV) risk reduction. RECENT
findingsRecent trials of EPA and DHA have offered conflicting evidence. Some demonstrate reduction in CV risk using EPA alone in select populations. Others have demonstrated no benefit, with potential for side effects, such as new-onset atrial fibrillation. Both EPA and DHA have favorable impact on lipids and inflammation, suggesting some biological plausibility for CV risk reduction. However, clinical trials of these agents have produced mixed results. Based on available evidence, EPA may work better for CV risk than DHA and EPA combined. The benefit of EPA seems to be dose dependent, though higher doses may have more side effects. Further research is needed to define the role of EPA and DHA in the landscape of CV risk reduction.
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.