Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs for Chemoprevention in Patients With Familial Adenomatous Polyposis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background and AimsPublished literature shows mixed reports of the benefits of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on reducing colorectal polyps in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). We conducted a systematic review and performed a meta-analysis to assess the impact of NSAIDs on colorectal polyp burden in patients with FAP.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of NSAIDs vs placebo on the percent change in polyp number and polyp size in patients with FAP. Mean differences between the 2 study arms were pooled using RevMan. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs, and certainty in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.ResultsThe search strategy identified 1021 studies, out of which we included 8 RCTs with a total of 279 patients. Treatment for 6.4 ± 2.2 months with NSAIDs reduced polyp numbers by −17.4% (95% confidence interval −26.41%, −8.29%) (low certainty [I2 89%] due to imprecision and issues with RoB) and polyp size by −15.9% (95% confidence interval −24.98%, −6.73%) (very low certainty (I2 84%) due to imprecision, inconsistency, and issues with RoB). The most common gastrointestinal adverse events reported were stomatitis, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. Side effects leading to drug discontinuation were gastroenteritis and drug allergy.ConclusionShort-term use of NSAIDs reduced polyp number and polyp size but with low to very low certainty of evidence. Further large multicenter studies are needed to further explore NSAIDs as a chemopreventive measure in patients with FAP. Published literature shows mixed reports of the benefits of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on reducing colorectal polyps in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). We conducted a systematic review and performed a meta-analysis to assess the impact of NSAIDs on colorectal polyp burden in patients with FAP. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of NSAIDs vs placebo on the percent change in polyp number and polyp size in patients with FAP. Mean differences between the 2 study arms were pooled using RevMan. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs, and certainty in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. The search strategy identified 1021 studies, out of which we included 8 RCTs with a total of 279 patients. Treatment for 6.4 ± 2.2 months with NSAIDs reduced polyp numbers by −17.4% (95% confidence interval −26.41%, −8.29%) (low certainty [I2 89%] due to imprecision and issues with RoB) and polyp size by −15.9% (95% confidence interval −24.98%, −6.73%) (very low certainty (I2 84%) due to imprecision, inconsistency, and issues with RoB). The most common gastrointestinal adverse events reported were stomatitis, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. Side effects leading to drug discontinuation were gastroenteritis and drug allergy. Short-term use of NSAIDs reduced polyp number and polyp size but with low to very low certainty of evidence. Further large multicenter studies are needed to further explore NSAIDs as a chemopreventive measure in patients with FAP.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».