Evidence mapPaperPMID 28832637Full record

SynthesisPloS one2017

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the protective effects of metformin in experimental myocardial infarction.

Nienke A Hesen, Niels P Riksen, Bart Aalders, Michelle AE Brouwer, Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga, Saloua El Messaoudi, Kimberley E Wever

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. 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 21 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Evaluating Novel Targets of Ischemia Reperfusion Injury in Pig Models.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nienke A HesenSYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department for Health Evidence, Nijmegen Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Niels P RiksenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Bart AaldersSYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department for Health Evidence, Nijmegen Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Michelle AE Brouwer
Merel Ritskes-HoitingaSYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department for Health Evidence, Nijmegen Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Saloua El MessaoudiDepartment of Cardiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Kimberley E WeverSYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department for Health Evidence, Nijmegen Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Medical Center · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metformin improves cardiovascular prognosis in patients with diabetes mellitus, compared to alternative glucose-lowering drugs, despite similar glycemic control. Direct cardiovascular protective properties have therefore been proposed, and studied in preclinical models of myocardial infarction. We now aim to critically assess the quality and outcome of these studies. We present a systematic review, quality assessment and meta-analysis of the effect of metformin in animal studies of experimental myocardial infarction. Through a comprehensive search in Pubmed and EMBASE, we identified 27 studies, 11 reporting on ex vivo experiments and 18 reporting on in vivo experiments. The primary endpoint infarct size as percentage of area at risk was significantly reduced by metformin in vivo (MD -18.11[-24.09,-12.14]) and ex vivo (MD -18.70[-25.39, -12.02]). Metformin improved the secondary endpoints left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular end systolic diameter. A borderline significant effect on mortality was observed, and there was no overall effect on cardiac hypertrophy. Subgroup analyses could be performed for comorbidity and timing of treatment (infarct size and mortality) and species and duration of ischemia (LVEF), but none of these variables accounted for significant amounts of heterogeneity. Reporting of possible sources of bias was extremely poor, including randomization (reported in 63%), blinding (33%), and sample size calculation (0%). As a result, risk of bias (assessed using SYRCLE's risk of bias tool) was unclear in the vast majority of studies. We conclude that metformin limits infarct-size and improves cardiac function in animal models of myocardial infarction, but our confidence in the evidence is lowered by the unclear risk of bias and residual unexplained heterogeneity. We recommend an adequately powered, high quality confirmatory animal study to precede a randomized controlled trial of acute administration of metformin in patients undergoing reperfusion for acute myocardial infarction.

Indexed as

AnimalsIn Vitro TechniquesMetforminMiceMyocardial InfarctionRabbitsRatsSwineMetformin

Identifiers

PMID28832637
PMCPMC5568412
OpenAlexW2748776530

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.