SynthesisBMC nephrology2026
Efficacy and safety analysis of different treatment schemes of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for chronic kidney disease with anemia: a meta analysis between 2000-2024.
Synthesis in BMC nephrology, 2026. 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.
- The pathological mechanisms and potential therapeutic strategies for renal anemia.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different regimens of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in the treatment of anemia associated with chronic kidney disease. The regimens analyzed include a low-frequency high-dose epoetin group, a high-frequency low-dose epoetin group, and a Darbepoetin group.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted across several databases, including the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, China Biology Medicine disc (CBM), PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. We focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to ESA treatment for renal anemia published between January 1, 2000, and August 31, 2024. Data were extracted from studies meeting the inclusion criteria, and the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was employed for analysis. A meta-analysis of hemoglobin levels and adverse events was performed using RevMan 5.4.
resultsTwenty-eight studies were included in this review. Of these, 22 studies analyzed the frequency and efficacy of various dosage forms of short-acting ESAs, encompassing 1,670 patients with renal anemia. Additionally, 6 studies comprising 282 patients evaluated the efficacy and safety of Darbepoetin compared to high-frequency low-dose short-acting ESAs. The efficacy analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in hemoglobin level increases between the low-frequency high-dose group and the high-frequency low-dose group of epoetin [MD = 1.38, 95% CI (−0.64, 3.40), Z = 1.34, p > 0.05], nor between the Darbepoetin and short-acting ESA groups [MD = 0.23, 95% CI (−0.16, 0.62), Z = 1.16, p > 0.05]. In terms of safety, there were also no statistically significant differences between the low-frequency high-dose group and the high-frequency low-dose group [MD = 1.30, 95% CI (0.98, 1.73), Z = 1.82, p > 0.05]; however, the Darbepoetin group demonstrated a superior safety profile compared to the short-acting ESA group [MD = 0.63, 95% CI (0.41, 0.97), Z = 2.09, p < 0.05].
conclusionThe results indicate no significant difference in efficacy and safety between the low-frequency and high-frequency groups. Nevertheless, the low-frequency administration of erythropoietin (Darbepoetin) resulted in fewer adverse reactions, potentially improving patient compliance. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.