Beta-blocker use and COPD mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the benefits of beta-blockers in patients with established or sub-clinical coronary artery disease, their use in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been controversial. Currently, no systematic review has examined the impact of beta-blockers on mortality in COPD. METHODS: We systematically searched electronic bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for clinical studies that examine the association between beta-blocker use and all cause mortality in patients with COPD. Risk ratios across studies were pooled using random effects models to estimate a pooled relative risk across studies. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot. RESULTS: Our search identified nine retrospective cohort studies that met the study inclusion criteria. The pooled relative risk of COPD related mortality secondary to beta-blocker use was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.62-0.78; I2=82%). CONCLUSION: The results of this review are consistent with a protective effect of beta-blockers with respect to all cause mortality. Due to the observational nature of the included studies, the possibility of confounding that may have affected these results cannot be excluded. The hypothesis that beta blocker therapy might be of benefit in COPD needs to be evaluated in randomised controlled trials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".