ReviewCureus2026
Evaluation of the Efficacy of Pharmacological Interventions in the Prevention of Acute Mountain Sickness: A Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute mountain sickness (AMS) is a common altitude-related condition affecting individuals ascending to high elevations, presenting with headache, nausea, fatigue, and dizziness. Although several pharmacological agents have been proposed for AMS prophylaxis, their comparative effectiveness remains insufficiently established. A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Major electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing pharmacological interventions for AMS prophylaxis. Data from 46 eligible studies were extracted using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA) and analyzed with R software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). The primary outcome was AMS incidence. Network geometry was mapped using network plots; treatment effects were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); and interventions were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. Risk of bias was assessed, and certainty of evidence was determined by CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). The analysis incorporated 46 studies evaluating multiple pharmacological agents. SUCRA rankings identified inhaled budesonide as the most efficacious agent for AMS prevention, followed by acetazolamide and theophylline. Most studies demonstrated low risk of bias. Acetazolamide exhibited narrower CIs, reflecting a more robust and reliable evidence base. CINeMA showed overall moderate certainty of evidence. Inhaled budesonide had the highest probability of being the most effective pharmacological agent for AMS prevention, with acetazolamide and theophylline also demonstrating substantial efficacy. Acetazolamide remains the best-evidenced option. Additional high-quality RCTs are required to consolidate treatment hierarchies and evaluate agents with limited current data.
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.