SynthesisJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2025
Efficacy and Safety of Catheter-Based Renal Denervation for Patients With Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does Renal Sympathetic Denervation Impact the Outcome in Sepsis-Induced Shock? An Experimental Porcine Model.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- From resistant hypertension to renal denervation: an emerging therapeutic approach in light of new international guidelines.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of renal denervation (RDN) for patients with hypertension. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched to identify relevant studies published before December 31, 2024. Review Manager 5.3 software was used to assess the results of the meta-analyses and the risk of bias plot. We pooled 2208 participants from 13 studies. The RDN was superior to the sham surgery group in the change in 24 h ambulatory systolic blood pressure (ASBP) and the change in 24 h ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (ADBP) (MD: -4.55 mmHg, 95% CI: -5.65 to -3.44; MD: -2.37 mmHg, 95% CI: -3.06 to -1.68, respectively). For the change in daytime ASBP and ADBP, significant differences were found between the RDN group and the sham group (MD: -6.21 mmHg, 95% CI: -7.61 to -4.80; MD: -2.96, 95% CI: -3.85 to -2.07). Compared to the sham surgery group, the RDN group showed better results in the change in night-time ASBP and ADBP (MD: -4.67 mmHg, 95% CI: -6.32 to -3.03; MD: -2.28 mmHg, 95% CI: -3.33 to -1.24). No significant differences were found between the RDN group and the sham group in terms of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) (p = 0.39 and 0.07). Subgroup analyses showed that RDN remains effective at long-term follow-up, and both ultrasound and radiofrequency RDN were effective. Current evidence shows that RDN is an effective treatment for patients with hypertension and does not increase the risk of AEs and SAEs.
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.