ReviewCardiology research and practice2015
Current status of sodium bicarbonate in coronary angiography: an updated comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review.
Review in Cardiology research and practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hydration Strategies for Preventing Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Corrigendum to "Current Status of Sodium Bicarbonate in Coronary Angiography: An Updated Comprehensive Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review".Cardiology research and practice · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrigendum to "Current Status of Sodium Bicarbonate in Coronary Angiography: An Updated Comprehensive Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review".2018 · Ali-Hassan-Sayegh, Sadegh [corrected to Ali-Hasan-Al-Saegh, Sadeq]
Authors and funding
15 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review with meta-analysis sought to determine comparison of efficacy and safety of hydration with sodium bicarbonate versus sodium chloride on contrast induced nephropathy and clinical outcomes. We searched major electronic databases for studies in randomized controlled trials. A value of P < 0.1 for Q test or I (2) > 50% indicated significant heterogeneity between the studies. Literature search of all databases retrieved 650 studies. 29 studies enrolled in meta-analysis. Pooled analysis indicated about the incidence of CIN (OR of 0.718; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.85; P = 0.000), requirement of hemodialysis (OR of 1.00; 95% CI: 0.49 to 2.01; P = 0.9), mean changes of serum creatinine (WMD of 2.321; 95% CI: 1.995 to 2.648; P = 0.000), length of hospital stays (WMD of -0.774; 95% CI: -1.65 to 0.10; P = 0.08), major adverse cardiovascular events (OR = 1.075, 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.95; P = 0.8), and mortality (OR of 0.73; 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.26; P = 0.2). Overall, hydration with sodium bicarbonate could significantly reduce CIN and the length of hospital stay compared to sodium chloride. In addition NAC added as a supplement to sodium bicarbonate could increase prophylactic effects against nephropathy.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.