MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1604599315

Histamine H2 receptor antagonists for decreasing gastrointestinal harms in adults using acetylsalicylic acid: systematic review and meta-analysis.

2012· review· en· W1604599315 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea C. Tricco, Abdullah Alateeq, Mariam Tashkandi, Muhammad Mamdani, Mohammed Al‐Omran, Sharon E. Straus

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMast cells and histamine
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboOdds ratioInternal medicineConcomitantRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisGastrointestinal bleedingConfidence intervalFamotidineMEDLINERelative riskAlternative medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if histamine H2 receptor antagonists (H2 blockers) prevent a variety of gastrointestinal harms among patients taking acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) over long periods. METHODS: Electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; from inception to November 2010) and reference lists of retrieved articles were searched. Randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of H2 blockers in reducing gastrointestinal harms (bleeding, ulcers) among adults taking ASA for 2 weeks or longer were included. Two reviewers independently abstracted study and patient characteristics and appraised study quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Peto odds ratio (OR) meta-analysis was performed, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I (2) and χ(2) statistics. RESULTS: Six RCTs (4 major publications and 2 companion reports) with a total of 498 participants (healthy volunteers or patients with arthritis, cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease, or diabetes mellitus) were included. One trial adequately reported allocation concealment and sequence generation, with the other 3 trials being judged as unclear for both aspects. In one RCT, no statistically significant differences for gastrointestinal hemorrhage requiring admission to hospital (p = 0.14) or blood transfusion (p = 0.29) were observed between the group receiving concomitant famotidine and ASA and the group receiving concomitant placebo and ASA. After a median of 8 weeks' follow-up, H2 blockers were more effective than placebo in reducing gastrointestinal hemorrhage (2 RCTs, total of 447 patients, OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02-0.23) and peptic ulcers (3 RCTs, total of 465 patients, OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.12-0.36) among patients taking ASA for 2 weeks or longer. Despite substantial clinical heterogeneity across the studies, including types of H2 blockers, dosing of ASA and underlying conditions, no statistical heterogeneity was observed. INTERPRETATION: H2 blockers reduced gastrointestinal harm among patients taking ASA for 2 weeks or longer. These results should be interpreted with caution, because of the small number of studies identified for inclusion.

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

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.029
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMast cells and histamineFrench-language works237,207