A meta-analysis of the vascular-related safety profile and efficacy of α-adrenergic blockers for symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety profile and efficacy of alpha1-adrenergic receptor blockers (A1Bs) currently prescribed for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database and the Food and Drug Administration Web site through December 2006 identified double-blinded, prospective, placebo-controlled trials, evaluating agents commercially available by prescription for the symptomatic treatment of BPH. REVIEW METHODS: Data were reviewed by two investigators with the use of a standardised data abstraction form. Studies were evaluated for methodological quality using the Jadad scale. Studies with a score of < 3 were considered of weaker methodology. RESULTS: Of 2389 potential citations, 25 were usable for evaluation of safety data, 26 for efficacy. A1B use was associated with a statistically significant increase in the odds of developing a vascular-related event [odds ratio (OR) 2.54; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.00-3.24; p < 0.0001]. The odds of developing a vascular-related adverse event were: alfuzosin, OR 1.66, 95% CI: 1.17-2.36; terazosin, OR 3.71, 95% CI: 2.48-5.53; doxazosin, OR 3.32, 95% CI: 2.10-5.23 and tamsulosin, OR 1.42, 95% CI: 0.99-2.05. A1Bs increased Q(max) by 1.32 ml/min (95% CI: 1.07-1.57) compared with placebo. Difference from placebo in American Urological Association symptom index/International Prostate Symptom Score was -1.92 points (95% CI: -2.71 to -1.14). CONCLUSIONS: Alfuzosin, terazosin and doxazosin showed a statistically significant increased risk of developing vascular-related events compared with placebo. Tamsulosin showed a numerical increase that was not statistically significant. All agents significantly improved Q(max) and symptom signs compared with placebo.
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 | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".