ArticleMedicine2026
Appropriateness of terlipressin use and its association with clinical efficacy and safety: A real-world cohort study of 240 hospitalized patients.
Article in Medicine, 2026. 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
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of terlipressin use and assess its effects on coagulation parameters in 240 hospitalized patients treated between January 2024 and January 2025 in a real-world, single-center retrospective cohort. Clinical appropriateness, encompassing diagnostic indication, initial dosing, and administration route, was rigorously evaluated against current clinical guidelines and the manufacturer's prescribing information. Key coagulation parameters - prothrombin time, thrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and fibrinogen - were analyzed before and after treatment using paired-sample t tests, and patients were stratified into short-course (≤5 days) and long-course (≥6 days) therapy groups to examine the impact of treatment duration on outcomes using independent-sample t tests. The analysis revealed a high degree of appropriateness: 231 patients (96.3%) received terlipressin for guideline-consistent indications, 143 patients (59.6%) were administered the recommended initial bolus dose of 2 mg, and 185 cases (77.1%) employed the advised slow intravenous infusion route. Treatment with terlipressin significantly improved coagulation, with prothrombin time decreasing by a mean of 1.43 seconds and fibrinogen increasing by 0.11 g/L (both P < .01). However, extending the treatment course beyond 5 days offered no additional coagulation benefit, as no parameters showed significant improvement in the long-course compared with the short-course group (all P > .05). These results underscore that terlipressin use was largely appropriate for indication and route, but extending therapy beyond 5 days provided no additional coagulation benefit. This finding supports stricter adherence to guideline-recommended treatment duration to promote more rational and effective use of terlipressin in clinical practice.
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.