ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2026
Clinical research on pulmonary hypertension from a 2025 perspective: a narrative review.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a clinical syndrome characterized by progressive elevation of pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) and subsequent right ventricular (RV) failure. The research of PH has undergone unprecedented transformation in 2025, marked by paradigm-shifting therapeutic advances, refined diagnostic criteria, and sophisticated precision medicine approaches. This narrative review aims to synthesize the recent evidence from pivotal clinical trials, epidemiological studies, and translational research that collectively redefine the management of this complex disease spectrum, providing clinicians and researchers with an overview of current developments and future directions. Methods: The literature search was conducted in PubMed with particular focus on publications from January 2025 to December 2025. Inclusion criteria encompassed clinical trials, observational studies, registry analyses, and research articles reporting novel diagnostic approaches, biomarkers, therapeutic interventions, and management strategies for PH. Studies were selected based on their relevance to clinical practice and scientific significance. The selection process was conducted independently, with consensus reached through discussion for any discrepancies. Key Content and Findings: The 2025 clinical research on PH evolved towards precision assessment driven by novel biomarkers and artificial intelligence (AI), enhanced imaging [echocardiography, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)] for improved detection, phenotyping, and risk stratification. Therapeutically, the treatment focus has shifted beyond vasodilation to attenuating pathological remodeling. Most notably, sotatercept, its validation in reduce clinical worsening expanded across diverse patient populations. Alongside, optimized use of classical pathways (endothelin, nitric oxide, prostacyclin) and emerging targeted therapies (e.g., seralutinib, imatinib) may bring more clinical benefits. Interventional therapies have been optimized through large-scale registries and patient-specific factors, while non-pharmacological strategies have gained recognition as essential components of multidisciplinary management. Furthermore, right ventricular targeted therapies have received increasing attention and improved outcomes for patients. Conclusions: The convergence of sophisticated risk stratification tools and mechanism-based therapeutics in 2025 established a robust foundation for improving survival and quality of life in PH patients.
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.