ReviewIranian journal of public health2024
Clinical Advantages of Phlebotomy: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses.
Review in Iranian journal of public health, 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.
- Old Therapy, New Questions: Rethinking Phlebotomy in a Pharmacologic Landscape.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Phlebotomy has been used as a non-pharmacological treatment for different types of diseases, regarding the philosophy of humors in traditional medicines, such as Persian Medicine. However, according to the narrow-approved indications for phlebotomy in Western Medicine, we aimed to systematically summarize high-level of evidence on safety and efficacy of phlebotomy in treatment of human diseases. Methods: In this umbrella review, to identify meta-analysis studies of clinical trials on phlebotomy, four electronic databases, including PubMed, web of science, Scopus, and Cochran library were searched until Jun 18, 2022 with relevant keywords for 'phlebotomy' and 'meta-analysis' according to PRISMA guidelines and PICO questions. After excluding irrelevant studies, data on subject characteristics, method of intervention, and adverse events were extracted. To evaluate the quality of the methodology of the systematic reviews, AMSTAR2 scale was utilized. Results: From 327 identified studies, 7 full texts met the inclusion criteria, consisting of 56 clinical trials on 5648 subjects. These meta-analysis studies reported effects of phlebotomy on hypertension, acute gouty arthritis, skin disease (chronic urticaria and porphyria), and liver diseases (non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, chronic hepatitis C, and liver surgery). Our results showed significant improvements in different outcomes, while the most common adverse event was hematoma. Conclusion: The level of evidence on the efficacy and safety of phlebotomy in some specific health conditions was substantial; however, to investigate the efficacy and safety of phlebotomy in management of other health problems more clinical studies with high sample sizes are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39759207PMC11693810What 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.