ArticleClinical kidney journal2024
Hypoxia inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors: what a meta-analysis could tell us.
Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Meta-analyses offer an estimate of the overall effect size and help address the inconsistency in findings across studies. The risk is the overemphasis on statistical significance while underrepresenting or misinterpreting clinical significance. There's also a lack of standardized methods for quantifying and reporting clinical significance and these measures are often missing or inconsistently reported in many meta-analyses, making it difficult for readers to determine the clinical relevance of the findings. A major merit of Minutolo's meta-analysis is to formally evaluate efficacy and safety of Hypoxia Inducible Factor Prolyl Hydroxylase Inhibitors (HIF-PHI) as class and as single agents in comparison with ESA, by selecting from only phase-3 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that compared HIF-PHIs with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in dialysis and non-dialysis patients. From a clinical perspective, the primary evaluation in this meta-analysis should have been the percentage of patients able to reach and maintain the target haemoglobin (Hb) levels throughout the trials but only a few RCTs selected this primary end point. Any claimed superiority of one drug over another should consider the selected doses. The amount of iron administered to patients, their iron stores and level of inflammation are important confounding factors that affect the reliability of any comparison.
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.