MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Omega 3 fatty acids (fish oil) for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis

2007· review· en· W1555174877 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Turner, A Hillary Steinhart, Anne M. Griffiths

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUlcerative colitisInternal medicineMeta-analysisPlaceboRandomized controlled trialFish oilAdverse effectSubgroup analysisClinical trialRelative riskMEDLINEGastroenterologyConfidence intervalDiseaseAlternative medicinePathologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Omega-3 fatty acids (n-3, fish oil) have been shown to have anti-inflammatory properties. Therefore, n-3 therapy may be beneficial in chronic inflammatory disorders such as ulcerative colitis. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the efficacy and safety of n-3 for maintaining remission in ulcerative colitis (UC). SEARCH STRATEGY: The following databases were searched from their inception without language restriction: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Healthstar, PubMed, and ACP journal club. Experts were contacted for unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCT) of fish oil for maintenance of remission in UC were included. Studies must have enrolled patients (of any age group) who were in remission at the time of recruitment, and were followed for at least six months. The intervention must have been fish oil given in pre-defined dosage. Co-interventions were allowed only if they were balanced between the study groups. The primary outcome was relapse rate and the secondary outcome was frequency of adverse events. Other outcomes to assess efficacy were change in disease activity scores and time to first relapse. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent investigators reviewed studies for eligibility, extracted the data and assessed study quality. Meta-analysis weighted by the Mantel-Haenszel method was performed using RevMan 4.2.8 software. Random or fixed effect models were used according to degree of heterogeneity and subgroup analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity. A sensitivity analysis was performed excluding a study of questionable quality . MAIN RESULTS: The three studies that were included used different formulation and dosing of n-3 but none used enteric coated capsules. The pooled analysis showed a similar relapse rate in the n-3 treated patients and controls (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.51 to 2.03; P = 0.96). Combining the studies resulted in virtually no statistical heterogeneity (P = 0.93, I(2) = 0%). Various subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar results. However, the total number of patients enrolled in these studies was small (n = 138). No significant adverse events were recorded in any of the studies and not enough data were available to pool the other secondary outcomes for meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found that supports the use of omega 3 fatty acids for maintenance of remission in UC. Further studies using enteric coated capsules may be justified.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0260.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.150
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations95
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207