ArticlePharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Assessment of Registered Clinical Trial Designs: Comparison of L-Arginine and/or L-Citrulline Interventions for Hypertension.
Article in Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundL-Arginine (Arg) is an essential amino acid and a precursor for the synthesis of vascular nitric oxide, while L-Citrulline is a non-essential amino acid substrate for increasing L-arginine. Both L-arginine and L-Citrulline in translational studies may acutely lower the blood pressure. Current meta-analysis for L-arginine or L-Citrulline interventions in blood pressure have identified significant heterogeneity. Clinical trial evidence for L-arginine or L-Citrulline in chronic blood pressure reduction in the general population requires an examination of trial designs, as not all translational studies may have influenced vascular reactivity. Our aims are to explore whether L-arginine and L-citrulline intervention trials in chronic blood pressure consider standardized end points relevant to the general adult populations.
methodsA step-wise search on clinicaltrials.gov, the U.S. Library of Medicine registry for clinical trials, was performed including the following keyword search parameters: "completed" "L-Citrulline" "L-arginine" trial", and "adults", involving "blood pressure" reduction as a primary end point in adult humans.
resultsOf the forty-four completed trials, only five were included for analysis. Following the careful evaluation of trial design, we observed heterogeneity across participant inclusion criteria (population sample size, age range, sex), interventional design (dosages, duration), and primary outcomes, measured with respect to changes in diastolic or systolic blood pressure.
conclusionIn conclusion, there is a lack of robust trial design evidence to suggest that L-arginine or L-Citrulline, based on current RCTs in the general population, have an overall positive effect on vascular endothelial reactivity and a beneficial chronic blood pressure-lowering effect. Indeed, conclusions drawn from human meta-analysis studies have been heterogenous between studies, which may be attributed to study design heterogeneity, including differences in sample population, age, and blood pressure at the time of entry. Inconsistencies in the study design poses a challenge for systematic reviews and meta-analysis to accurately assess the effect size and impact of L-arginine or L-citrulline on both systolic and diastolic blood pressure.
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.