SynthesisScientific reports2025
Immunosuppressive therapy in patients with biopsy-proven inflammatory myocardial disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate and update the effects of immunosuppressive therapy on heart failure outcomes in patients aged 16 years or older with biopsy-proven inflammatory myocardial disease. We performed a systematic review and an aggregate data meta-analysis of studies evaluating the effects of such therapy in acute and chronic myocarditis or inflammatory dilated cardiomyopathy. Studies were chosen based on criteria related to clinical relevance for therapeutic decisions and measured outcomes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and New York Heart Association classification (NYHA) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Data sources included PubMed, Embase, Ovid, and ClinicalTrials.gov, with manual reference checks. Data extraction and risk-of-bias assessments were performed by two independent reviewers. We used a random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity with I
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.