ArticleRenal failure2024
Effect of remote ischemic preconditioning, nicorandil, and trimetazidine in contrast-induced nephropathy: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Renal failure, 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionContrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is a potential complication associated with the administration of intravenous contrast agents. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) and two pharmacological interventions in preventing CIN.
methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy of RIPC, nicorandil, and trimetazidine in treating CIN were searched within databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science. The primary outcome was the incidence of CIN. The consistency model was used to address heterogeneity and enhance model fit. The assessment of consistency between direct and indirect evidence was conducted through the node-splitting method. Posterior probability estimates and surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) ranked interventions based on their effectiveness in preventing CIN. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework was used to grade the quality of evidence.
resultsBased on hydration therapy, RIPC, nicorandil, and trimetazidine all showed prophylactic effects on CIN compared to control groups. The SUCRA results showed that RIPC (SUCRA = 37.7%, PrBest = 0.4%), nicorandil (SUCRA = 91.2%, PrBest = 74.7%), and trimetazidine (SUCRA = 71.0%, PrBest = 24.9%). However, there were no significant differences between the nicorandil, RIPC, and trimetazidine groups. Subgroup analysis suggested that there was still a protective effect in populations with mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m
conclusionsNicorandil, trimetazidine, and RIPC all showed renal protective effects. Based on hydration, nicorandil, trimetazidine, and RIPC may show better prophylaxis against CIN than hydration alone after intravenous contrast administration.
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.