SynthesisEuropean journal of pediatrics2024
Efficacy of piracetam in children with breath-holding spells: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of pediatrics, 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.
- AI-Powered Insights into Drug Resistance in Gastric Cancer: A Path Toward Precision Therapy.Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPRReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A number of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted comparing the efficacy of piracetam with placebo and other medications in children with breath-holding spells (BHS). However, no systematic review has yet collated all this evidence. All RCTs comparing the efficacy and/or safety of piracetam with placebo or other medications in children with BHS were included. The pooled estimates were compared for the number of participants with a favorable response, the change in monthly frequency of BHS, compliance, and adverse effects in both groups. The ROB 2.0 tool was used to assess the risk of bias, and the GRADE system was used to determine the certainty of the collated evidence. We included 5 RCTs (437 participants) in the review. Piracetam group had significantly more participants with favorable responses at 1, 2 and 3 months after randomization, as compared to placebo group (RR: 6.5 (95% CI-1.8-23.2), I2 = 75%, p = 0.004, RR: 4.7 (95% CI-3.3-6.7), I2 = 49%, p < 0.0001, RR: 5.4 (95% CI-3.4-8.5), I2 = 0%, p < 0.0001 respectively). Number of participants with complete response or total cessation of attacks was more in the piracetam group compared to placebo (RR: 5.7 (95% CI-1.4-23.2), I2 = 88%, p = 0.01). Change in the average number of BHS was significantly more in the piracetam group, as compared to the placebo group (mean difference-4.9 (95% CI-0.7-9.0), I2 = 99%, p = 0.02). Number of participants with treatment-emergent adverse effects were comparable in both piracetam and placebo groups (RR: 1.9 (95% CI-0.5-7.6), I
Indexed as
Identifiers
39692893What 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.