Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37577228›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational hepatology2023

Carvedilol Versus Other Nonselective Beta Blockers for Variceal Bleeding Prophylaxis and Death: A Network Meta-analysis.

Ka-Shing Cheung, Chiu-Hang Mok, Lok-Ka Lam, Xian-Hua Mao, Lung-Yi Mak, Wai-Kay Seto, Man-Fung Yuen

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational hepatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ka-Shing CheungDepartment of Medicine, School of Clinical Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, China.
Chiu-Hang MokSchool of Clinical Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Lok-Ka LamDepartment of Medicine, School of Clinical Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, China.
Xian-Hua MaoDepartment of Medicine, School of Clinical Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, China.
Lung-Yi MakDepartment of Medicine, School of Clinical Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, China.
Wai-Kay SetoDepartment of Medicine, School of Clinical Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9012-313X
Man-Fung YuenDepartment of Medicine, School of Clinical Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7985-7725
Queen Mary Hospital · CNChinese University of Hong Kong · HK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis (NWM) to examine comparative effectiveness of non-selective beta blockers (NSBBs) on prophylaxis of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding (GVB) and mortality benefit. Methods: MEDLINE (OVID) and EMBASE databases were searched for eligible randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from inception to July 3, 2021. Outcomes of interest included primary/secondary prophylaxis of GVB, failure to achieve hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) decremental response, liver-related and all-cause mortality. A Bayesian NWM was performed to derive relative risk (RR) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The ranking probability of each NSBB was assessed by surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results: Thirty-three RCTs including 3,188 cirrhosis patients with gastroesophageal varices were included. Compared with placebo, nadolol ranked first for reducing variceal bleeding [RR:0.25, (95% CrI:0.11-0.51); SUCRA:0.898], followed by carvedilol [RR:0.33, (95% CrI: 0.11-0.88); SUCRA:0.692] and propranolol [RR:0.52, (95% CrI:0.37-0.75); SUCRA:0.405]. Carvedilol was more effective than propranolol in achieving HVPG decremental response [RR:0.43, (95% CrI: 0.26-0.69)]. Carvedilol ranked first for reducing all-cause mortality [RR: 0.32, (95% CrI:0.17-0.57); SUCRA:0.963), followed by nadolol [RR:0.48, (95% CI:0.29-0.77); SUCRA:0.688], and propranolol [RR:0.77, (95% CI:0.58-1.02); SUCRA: 0.337]. Similar findings were observed for liver-related mortality. Carvedilol ranked the safest. The RR of adverse events was 4.38, (95% CrI:0.33-161.4); SUCRA:0.530, followed by propranolol [RR: 7.54, (95% CrI:1.90-47.89); SUCRA:0.360], and nadolol [RR: 18.24, (95% CrI:91.51-390.90); SUCRA:0.158]. Conclusions: Carvedilol is the preferred NSBB with better survival benefit and lower occurrence of adverse events among patients with gastroesophageal varices.

Indexed as

CarvedilolCirrhosisCPSHNadololNSBBPropranololVarices

Identifiers

PMID37577228
PMCPMC10412710
OpenAlexW4380049770

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.