SynthesisJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2025
The Efficacy and Safety of Different Ways of Renal Denervation for Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Network 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 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Efficacy and Safety of Different Ways of Renal Denervation for Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2025Pooled it
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 study aimed to compare the blood pressure-lowering efficacy and safety of different renal denervation (RDN) techniques. We systematically searched PubMed, Ovid, and Embase up to September 4, 2025. The primary outcome was the change in 24 h ambulatory systolic blood pressure from baseline to the end of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included changes in 24 h ambulatory diastolic blood pressure and the incidence of major adverse events. Two reviewers independently conducted study screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. A network meta-analysis, along with sensitivity and subgroup analyses, was performed. Our analysis indicated that both radiofrequency RDN of the main renal artery and branches (RFB-RDN) and ultrasound RDN (US-RDN) were associated with significant reductions in 24 h ambulatory blood pressure, with comparable efficacy between the two approaches, whereas radiofrequency RDN of the main renal artery (RFM-RDN) and alcohol-mediated RDN (ALC-RDN) showed limited efficacy. Compared with sham, US-RDN and RFM-RDN showed trends toward fewer adverse events, whereas RFB-RDN and ALC-RDN exhibited numerically higher risks; however, these differences did not reach statistical significance. Subgroup analyses suggested that hypertension subtype, ethnicity, and baseline blood pressure may influence treatment effects, particularly for RFB-RDN.
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.