Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39254858›Full record

SynthesisHerz2025

Assessing the efficacy of renal denervation in patients with resistant arterial hypertension : Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ocílio Ribeiro Gonçalves, Francinny Alves Kelly, José Guilherme Maia, Artur de Oliveira Macena Lôbo, Vitor Kendi Tsuchiya Sano, Maria Eduarda Cavalcanti Souza, Francisco Cezar Aquino de Moraes, Nimra Farid, Arlindo Bispo da Silva Júnior, Avelar Alves da Silva

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Herz, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

10 authors.

Ocílio Ribeiro GonçalvesFederal University of Piauí, Teresina, Piauí, Brazil.
Francinny Alves KellyDepartment of Hypertension, Dante Pazzanese Cardiological Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
José Guilherme MaiaDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Amazonas, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.
Artur de Oliveira Macena LôboDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Acre, Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil.
Vitor Kendi Tsuchiya SanoDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil.
Maria Eduarda Cavalcanti SouzaDepartment of Medicine, University of Pernambuco, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil.
Francisco Cezar Aquino de MoraesDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Pará, Belém, Pará, Brazil.
Nimra FaridDepartment of Medicine, Mohiuddin Islamic Medical College, Mandi-bhauddin, Punjab, Pakistan.
Arlindo Bispo da Silva JúniorFederal University of Piauí, Teresina, Piauí, Brazil. arlindobispo2003@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-1525-2748
Avelar Alves da SilvaFederal University of Piauí, Teresina, Piauí, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRenal denervation (RDN) is an innovative procedure designed to regulate the renal sympathetic nervous system for the control of arterial hypertension (HTN). RDN has emerged as an alternative for patients with resistant HTN. However, the clinical efficacy of RDN remains incompletely elucidated.

methodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of RDN with sham procedure or pharmacological treatment in patients with resistant HTN. Statistical analyses were performed using R Studio 4.3.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Heterogeneity was examined with the Cochran Q test I

resultsTwenty-one RCTs comprising 3345 patients were included in this meta-analysis, whereby 2004 (59.91%) received renal denervation and 1341 (40.09%) received pharmacological treatment or sham procedure. Follow-up ranged from 2 to 48 months. Compared to control group, RDN significantly reduced SBP (MD -3.53 mm Hg; 95% CI -5.94 to -1.12; p = 0.004; I

conclusionIn this meta-analysis of RCTs of patients with resistant HTN, RDN was associated with a reduction in SBP and DBP compared to sham procedure or pharmacological treatment.

Indexed as

HypertensionKidneySympathectomyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeDiastolic blood pressureMeta-analysisResistant arterial hypertensionSystematic reviewSystolic blood pressure

Identifiers

PMID39254858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.