SynthesisWiener klinische Wochenschrift2025
Efficacy and safety of endothelin receptor antagonists in non-diabetic kidney nephropathy : A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecent evidence increasingly confirms the therapeutic potential of endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA) in treating non-diabetic kidney nephropathy. However, clinical data in this area remain limited. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of ERAs in the treatment of non-diabetic kidney nephropathy.
methodsRandomized controlled trials were identified through PubMed, WOS, Embase, Cochrane Library and Google scholar. The initial participant characteristics and primary outcome measures were gathered, followed by the calculation of risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Additionally, subgroup analyses were conducted to investigate the sources of heterogeneity.
resultIn this study, seven randomized, controlled trials (RCT) were included. The results indicated that patients in the ERAs group exhibited a greater mean reduction in the urinary protein to creatinine ratio (UPCR) (standardized mean difference, MD -28.08, 95% CI -33.59 to -22.57, p < 0.001). The number of patients experiencing either complete or partial remission from proteinuria notably increased when treated with ERAs (complete remission: odds ratio, OR = 3.14, 95% CI 2.23-4.42, p < 0.001; partial remission: OR = 3.03, 95% CI 2.33-3.96, p < 0.001). Furthermore, ERAs delayed the decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR, MD = 3.81, 95% CI 1.71-5.90, p < 0.001). However, the incidence of edema events slightly increased in the ERA group (OR = 1.42, 95% CI 1.04-1.93, p = 0.03).
conclusionThe use of ERAs is more effective than regimens without ERAs in slowing the progression of non-diabetic nephropathy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40263176What 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.