MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1588598279 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd002010

Bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in people with cystic fibrosis

2001· review· en· W1588598279 on OpenAlexaff
Christine Brenckmann, Αλεξάνδρα Παπαϊωάννου

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCystic fibrosisOsteoporosisAdverse effectBone mineralInternal medicineClinical trialBone densityPhysical therapyPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is a disorder of bone mineralization that can lead to reduced bone mineral density and an increased risk for fractures. It is found in about one third of adults with cystic fibrosis. Bisphosphonates have been shown to increase bone mineral density and decrease the risk of new fractures in post-menopausal women and in patients receiving long-term oral corticosteroids. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of bisphosphonates on the frequency of fractures, bone mineral density, quality of life, adverse events, study withdrawals, and survival in people with cystic fibrosis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Relevant trials were identified in the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Review Group specialised register of controlled trials by the centre co-ordinator. This register comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearching of relevant journals and of conference proceedings. Additional sources such as abstract books for osteoporosis conferences were hand-searched by the authors. The most recent search(es) were conducted in February 2001. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of at least six months duration that studied the use of bisphosphonates in adults with cystic fibrosis were considered for inclusion. Outcomes included one of the following: fractures, bone mineral density, quality of life, adverse events, study withdrawals, or survival. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information on study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes was abstracted from included studies. Two independent reviewers abstracted the information. Authors were contacted to obtain missing data. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials were identified in the trials search. Both trials with a total of 65 participants were included in this review. One study examined patients without lung transplants while the other study included only patients who had received a lung transplant. The intervention in both trials was pamidronate administered intravenously every three months. In patients who had not received a lung transplant, bone mineral density at axial sites was increased after six months of treatment in the treatment group compared to the control group (lumbar spine WMD [for % change BMD] = 5.8 [95% CI 4.63 to 6.97], hip WMD = 3.00 [95% CI 1.99 to 4.01]). There was a small decrease in forearm bone mineral density in patients treated with pamidronate versus controls (distal forearm WMD = -1.70 [95% CI -2.46 to -0.94]). Bone pain was the most common adverse event occurring in 11/15 participants not using corticosteroids (RR = 24.40, 95% CI 1.57 to 381.48). There was no difference in survival (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.20), although this may be due to short follow-up and small sample size. In patients who had received a lung transplant, the number of new fractures did not change with the use of pamidronate (non-vertebral RR = 3.38 [95% CI 0.39 to 29.29], vertebral RR = 0.56 [95% CI 0.17 to 1.89]). Bone mineral density at axial sites was increased after two years of treatment in the treatment group compared to the control group (lumbar spine WMD [for % change in BMD] = 6.20 [95% CI 4.28 to 8.12], femur WMD = 7.90 [95% CI 5.78 to 10.03]). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous pamidronate increases bone mineral density at axial sites in people with cystic fibrosis, although it can cause severe bone pain in patients not receiving corticosteroids. Additional studies in larger populations are needed to determine the effect on fracture rate and survival.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-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 score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations18
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207