Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36465804›Full record

ReviewBiomedicine hub

Comparison of Various Pharmacologic Agents in the Management of Hemodynamically Significant Patent Ductus Arteriosus in Preterm: A Network Meta-Analysis and Risk-Benefit Analysis.

Sudarat Eursiriwan, Chusak Okascharoen, Sakda Arj-Ong Vallibhakara, Oraluck Pattanaprateep, Pawin Numthavaj, John Attia, Ammarin Thakkinstian

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedicine hub. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sudarat EursiriwanDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Chusak OkascharoenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Sakda Arj-Ong VallibhakaraDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Oraluck PattanaprateepDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Pawin NumthavajDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
John AttiaCentre for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Ammarin ThakkinstianDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Mahidol University · THUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Various pharmacological treatments are available for preterm infants with patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), but their risks and benefits are controversial. This study aimed to identify the best treatment for PDA using network meta-analysis (NMA) and risk-benefit assessment (RBA). Methods: Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. RCTs were eligible if they were studied for preterm or low birth weight infants with presymptomatic PDA and hemodynamically significant PDA (hsPDA). The outcomes were PDA closure for a benefit and the composite risk outcome of adverse effects (AEs) for risk. An NMA was used to estimate the treatment effects of benefit and risk. The RBA helped to incorporate the risk and benefits of multiple treatments. Then, an incremental risk-benefit ratio was calculated by dividing the incremental risk by benefit using data from NMA, and they were jointly simulated using Monte Carlo methods. Finally, net clinical benefit (NCB) probability curves were constructed at varying acceptability thresholds. Results: Seventy RCTs with hsPDA were eligible considering 13 different interventions, but data on presymptomatic PDA were not enough for pooling. The clustered ranking plot from NMA indicated that 3 interventions (i.e., high-dose oral ibuprofen, standard-dose oral acetaminophen, and standard-dose oral ibuprofen) yielded high PDA closure and low AE. These three treatments and additional commonly used indomethacin were considered in the RBA. Given an acceptable threshold of 25% or having one AE out of four PDA closures, high-dose oral ibuprofen had a 36% chance of having the highest NCB, followed by standard-dose oral acetaminophen (27%), and oral ibuprofen (23.7%). Subgroup analysis indicated that the chances of having the highest NCB of GA ≥28 weeks were similar to that of all available studies. The best for GA <28 weeks, no data for high-dose oral ibuprofen, was standard-dose oral acetaminophen, followed by standard-dose oral ibuprofen. Conclusions: Trade-off RBA indicated that high-dose oral ibuprofen might be the best treatment for preterm, GA ≥28 weeks, with hsPDA followed by the standard-dose oral acetaminophen and ibuprofen. Preferably, optimal high doses, postnatal age to start treatment, and long-term outcomes are needed to study in the future.

Indexed as

AcetaminophenHemodynamically significant patent ductus arteriosusIbuprofenIndomethacinPatent ductus arteriosusPretermRisk-benefit analysis

Identifiers

PMID36465804
PMCPMC9710462
OpenAlexW4307283803

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.