MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042318705 · doi:10.1681/asn.2006010012

Statins for Improving Renal Outcomes

2006· review· en· W2042318705 on OpenAlexaff
Sabrina Sandhu, Natasha Wiebe, Linda F. Fried, Marcello Tonelli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAlbuminuriaRenal functionProteinuriaStatinConfidence intervalInternal medicineKidney diseaseMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialUrologyKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statins frequently are used to prevent cardiovascular events. Several recent studies suggest that statins also may have renal benefits, although this is controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess the effect of statins on change in kidney function and urinary protein excretion. Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, conference proceedings, and the authors' personal files were searched. Published or unpublished randomized, controlled trials or crossover trials of statins that reported assessment of kidney function or proteinuria were included, and studies of individuals with ESRD were excluded. Data were extracted for study design, subject characteristics, type of statin and dose, baseline/change in cholesterol levels, and outcomes (change in measured or estimated GFR [eGFR] and/or urinary protein excretion). Weighted mean differences were calculated for the change in GFR between statin and control groups using a random-effects model. A random-effects model also was used to calculate the standardized mean difference for the change in urinary protein excretion between groups. Twenty-seven eligible studies with 39,704 participants (21 with data for eGFR and 20 for proteinuria or albuminuria) were identified. Overall, the change in the weighted mean differences for eGFR was statistically significant (1.22 ml/min per yr slower in statin recipients; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44 to 2.00). In subgroup analysis, the benefit of statin therapy was statistically significant in studies of participants with cardiovascular disease (0.93 ml/min per yr slower than control subjects; 95% CI 0.10 to 1.76) but was NS for studies of participants with diabetic or hypertensive kidney disease or glomerulonephritis. The standardized mean difference for the reduction in albuminuria or proteinuria as a result of statin therapy was statistically significant (0.58 units of SD greater in statin recipients; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.98). Statin therapy seems to reduce proteinuria modestly and results in a small reduction in the rate of kidney function loss, especially in populations with cardiovascular disease.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 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

Citations480
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207