Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36694885›Full record

ReviewTouchREVIEWS in endocrinology2022

Statin-related Muscle Toxicity: An Evidence-based Review.

Mohammad S Jeeyavudeen, Joseph M Pappachan, Ganesan Arunagirinathan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in TouchREVIEWS in endocrinology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Advances in Non-statin Lipid Therapies: A Narrative Review of Evolving Strategies for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2026
    Review
  8. The Potential ofDrug design, development and therapy · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Are statin side effects dependent on sex? A narrative review.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

3 authors.

Mohammad S JeeyavudeenWestern General Hospital, Edinburgh Centre for Endocrinology Diabetes, Edinburgh, UK.
Joseph M PappachanLancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Lancashire, UK.
Ganesan ArunagirinathanWestern General Hospital, Edinburgh Centre for Endocrinology Diabetes, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The efficacy of statins in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease has been proven beyond doubt. The number needed to treat to prevent one cardiovascular event is 1 in 30 over 10 years, and the number needed to treat for secondary prevention is much lower. However, a recent study demonstrated that only 68% of eligible patients are on statin therapy. Moreover, there seems to be a reluctance to escalate statin doses due to the fear of adverse effects. The adverse effects that worries patients and their physicians most frequently are those related to muscular symptoms. N-of-1 trial evidence suggests that muscular symptoms attributed to statins are often caused by the nocebo effect. This article aims to provide a structured, evidence-based approach to suspected statin-related muscle toxicity.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular riskcreatine kinasestatin-associated muscle symptomsstatin-related muscle toxicitystatins

Identifiers

PMID36694885
PMCPMC9835810

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.