SynthesisScientific reports2024
The safety and efficacy of clevidipine for blood pressure management in neurocritical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clevidipine for the management of hypertension in the perioperative cardiac and noncardiac surgical settings: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Clevidipine infusion for blood pressure management after successful revascularisation in acute ischaemic stroke: the CLEVER study.European stroke journal · 2026Trial
- Safety of Coadministration of Continuous Infusions of Propofol and Clevidipine: A Multi-Site Retrospective Analysis.Pharmacotherapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aim to determine the safety and efficacy of clevidipine for neurocritical patients. To comprehensively identify relevant studies, a systematic search strategy was employed using the following keywords: "clevidipine", "high blood pressure", "hypertension", "Neuroscience Intensive Care", "neuro critical", and "neurosurgical patients". Searches were conducted in the Clinicaltrials.gov, PubMed, and EuroPMC databases, with the search extending until September 1, 2023. The primary outcomes of interest were the time needed to achieve the target systolic blood pressure (SBP) and the percentage of time a patient remained within the targeted SBP range. Secondary outcomes included SBP values, duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay in days, rates of hypotension, and rates of tachycardia. We included five retrospective cohort studies (n = 443), utilizing nicardipine as the primary comparator. Comparison of the time to reach target systolic blood pressure (SBP) revealed no significant difference between medications (SMD = - 1.09, p = 0.33). Likewise, the achieved SBP target showed no notable distinction (RR = 1.15, p = 0.81). However, clevidipine exhibited a slightly higher percentage of time within the target SBP range (SMD = 0.33, p = 0.04), albeit with moderate heterogeneity. Importantly, all included studies were retrospective cohort studies, underscoring the methodological context of the investigation. Clevidipine and the control group were found to be comparable in terms of achieving target SBP. Clevidipine may have a slight advantage in maintaining blood pressure within the desired range, but further research is needed to confirm this finding.
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.