SynthesisBMC rheumatology2025
Treatment approaches for idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC rheumatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical features, diagnosis, and management of retroperitoneal fibrosis in a university referral hospital and literature review.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical outcomes and management of idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis: a case series.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Comparable effectiveness of intensive intravenous and less intensive immunosuppressive treatment in retroperitoneal fibrosis: a retrospective real-world cohort study.Rheumatology international · 2026Observational
- Retroperitoneal Fibrosis with Pancreatic, Colonic Involvement Mimicking Malignancy: A Case Report.Visceral medicine · 2026Article
- Pharmacological treatment of idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis.Reumatologia · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, there is no standard therapy for idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis, so a systematic review was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of different treatment approaches.
methodsA comprehensive search of English and German literature from 1980 to 2021 was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and PreMedline. To be included, studies must have had a minimum of two patients employing the same treatment approach and reporting relevant treatment outcomes. A meta-analysis with a subgroup analysis was conducted for the primary outcomes "regression of fibrosis," "freedom from ureteric stents" and "relapse rate," and the secondary outcome "clinical improvement." The lack of homogeneous data prevented a subgroup analysis for the primary outcome "improvement in renal function."
resultsThe search resulted in a total of 3818 articles, of which 108 were selected for qualitative analysis involving a total of 1408 patients. For the meta-analysis 83 studies were included involving 1044 patients. The summary effect size of the outcomes "regression of fibrosis," "freedom from ureteric stent" and "clinical improvement" was high with values between 80-97.9%. The summary relapse rate across studies was 18.1%. Subgroup analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in the effectiveness of treatment approaches for the outcomes "regression of fibrosis" (QM = 2.72, p = 0.74), "freedom from ureteric stent" (QM = 7.21, p = 0.13), "relapse rate" (QM = 11.34, p = 0.08) and "clinical improvement" (QM = 9.54, p = 0.15).
conclusionsConsidering the lack of clear evidence indicating that one drug is more effective than the other, the treatment choice should depend on factors such as the potential side effects of different drug therapies, patient comorbidities, and clinician expertise. The review protocol is registered on PROSPERO under the identification number CRD42019115744.
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.