MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1923786133 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd002901

Digitalis for treatment of congestive heart failure in patients in sinus rhythm

2001· review· en· W1923786133 on OpenAlexaff
WB Hood, AL Dans, GH Guyatt, Roman Jaeschke

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureDigitalisAtrial fibrillationInternal medicineSinus rhythmCardiologyHeart diseaseMyocarditisPlaceboClinical trialIntensive care medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Digitalis glycosides have been in clinical use in the treatment of congestive heart failure for more than 200 years. In recent years several trials have been conducted to address concerns about efficacy and toxicity. Although a systematic review of the literature was recently published, an update is required to include more current trials. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of digitalis glycosides in treating congestive heart failure in patients with normal sinus rhythm. To examine the effect of digitalis in patients taking diuretics, ACE inhibitors, and beta blockers; patients with varying severity and duration of disease; patients with prior exposure to digitalis vs. no prior exposure; and patients with diastolic vs. systolic dysfunction. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases were searched between 1966 and 2000. Dissertation Abstracts and annual meeting abstracts of the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and European Society of Cardiology were searched from 1996-2000. In addition, reference lists provided by the pharmaceutical industry (Glaxo Wellcome Inc.) were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Included were randomized placebo-controlled trials of 20 or more adult patients of either sex with symptomatic congestive heart failure who were studied for seven weeks or more. Excluded were trials in which the prevalence of atrial fibrillation was 2% or greater, or in which any arrhythmia that might compromise cardiac function or any potentially reversible cause of heart failure such as acute ischemic heart disease or myocarditis was present. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Articles selected from the searches described above were reviewed by one of the coauthors, and validated by staff from the central office of the Heart Collaborative Review Group in Bristol, UK. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven articles meeting the defined criteria were identified, and major endpoints of mortality, hospitalization, and clinical status, based respectively upon on 8, 4, and 10 of these selected studies, were recorded and analyzed. The data show that there is no difference in mortality between treatment and control groups, whereas digitalis therapy is associated with a lower rate of hospitalization and of clinical deterioration. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The literature indicates that digitalis has a useful role in the treatment of patients with congestive heart failure who are in normal sinus rhythm.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
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 score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.265 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations53
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207