MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123861459 · doi:10.1001/archinte.165.10.1087

Theophylline for Prevention of Contrast-Induced Nephropathy

2005· review· en· W2123861459 on OpenAlexaff
Sean M. Bagshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Internal Medicine · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsSouth Health CampusUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContrast-induced nephropathyTheophyllineOdds ratioMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalNephropathyCreatinineInternal medicineRenal functionAdverse effectIncidence (geometry)DialysisEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is an important cause of declines in kidney function and is related to greater morbidity, health care costs, and mortality. Adenosine has been proposed to contribute to the pathophysiological process of CIN. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of theophylline, an adenosine antagonist, for the prevention of CIN. DATA SOURCES: Studies were identified in all languages by search of MEDLINE (1966 through November 2003), EMBASE (1980 through week 44 [November] of 2003), and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register (1996 through November 2003) databases and selected conference proceedings. STUDY SELECTION: We searched for randomized controlled trials comparing theophylline vs control in patients receiving radiocontrast media for angiography or computed tomography. DATA EXTRACTION: Our primary outcome measures were the risk of CIN, the difference in serum creatinine levels between theophylline and control groups at 48 hours and need for dialysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine randomized controlled trials involving 585 patients were identified and included for analysis. Theophylline protocols and definitions of CIN varied across studies. There was evidence of heterogeneity of results across trials (Q = 9.77; P = .08); therefore, pooled values require cautious interpretation. The overall pooled odds ratio (OR) using a conservative random-effects model was 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14 to 1.16; P = .09) indicating a trend toward reduction in the incidence of CIN with theophylline use. The pooled estimate for the difference in 48-hour serum creatinine levels between the theophylline and control groups was -0.17 mg/dL (95% CI, -0.28 to -0.06 mg/dL) (-15.2 micromol/L [95% CI, -24.6 to -5.7 micromol/L]) (P = .002), indicating that theophylline may be protective in CIN. The incidence of CIN requiring dialysis was uncommon and reported in only 1 case. CONCLUSIONS: Theophylline may reduce the incidence of CIN with an efficacy that is perhaps comparable to that reported in studies of N-acetylcysteine. However, findings are inconsistent across studies. A large, well-designed trial that incorporates the evaluation of clinically relevant outcomes is required to more adequately assess the role for theophylline in CIN prevention.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations141
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Internal MedicineSame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207