SynthesisPloS one2025
Safety outcomes of statin vs non-statin lipid-lowering interventions in patients with prior statin-associated muscle symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph read 1 number from its abstract, feeding 1 cell of the map, but none could be read as for or against, so it casts no vote. 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.
Read, but not usablea number the graph found but could not read as for or against
Therapy discontinuation due to muscle symptoms in RCTs was higher in the statin-based than the comparator groups (OR 1.48, 95%CI 1.03-2.12, I2 = 17.6%).
clause the extractor read what became the number
Where it lands on the map
Rows are treatments, columns are outcomes. The coloured squares are the cells this paper feeds, coloured by the vote it casts there. Click one to jump to what this paper adds to it.
What it adds to each cell
For every cell the paper feeds: the belief in the claim with and without this paper, and this paper's estimate drawn against every other readable study in the cell. The ringed dot is this paper.
Statins×adverse events & safety
No readable resultOpen on the map →What to test next →11 readable studies in this cell: 3 favour the treatment, 7 find no difference, 1 favour the comparator.
This paper's own estimate is on a different scale from the rest of the cell, so it is not drawn here.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The marked sentences are the ones the graph read a number from.
backgroundStatin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) are an obstacle in the prevention of cardiovascular events. A systematic assessment of the evidence of interventions in the setting of SAMS is lacking.
objectiveTo assess the evidence of strategies of statin-based vs non-statin based therapies in patients with a history of SAMS.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov and Proquest databases were searched from inception up to February 2024.We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies involving patients with history of prior SAMS, comparing statin-based therapy to a comparator. We followed the PRISMA guideline with multiple authors involved at each stage. A random-effect model was used in the meta-analysis. We defined the primary outcome as incidence of muscle symptoms. The secondary outcomes were proportion of statin discontinuation of statin-based therapy within patients with history of SAMS. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020202619).
resultsIn 23 studies (13 RCTs, 2 prospective and 8 retrospective studies) there were in total 1868 participants in RCTs and 47'628 participants in non-RCTs (follow-up 12 weeks - 31 months). Our confidence in the body of evidence using GRADE was moderate for the primary outcome and low-moderate for the secondary outcome. In RCTs among patients with history of SAMS, there was high heterogeneity in the statin regimens and controls (placebo/non-daily dosing/ezetimibe/PCSK9 inhibitors). In RCTs, the meta-analysis showed no difference between statin-based and control groups in the incidence of muscle symptoms (OR 1.19, 95%CI 0.86-1.64, I2: 46.3%)). Therapy discontinuation due to muscle symptoms in RCTs was higher in the statin-based than the comparator groups (OR 1.48, 95%CI 1.03-2.12, I2 = 17.6%).
conclusionOur findings suggest that patients with a history of SAMS can be re-challenged with statins. More high-quality evidence is needed to strengthen guidelines regarding the management of SAMS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.