MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Metformin in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus and Heart Failure

2013· review· en· W2131520853 on OpenAlexafffund
Dean T. Eurich, Daniala L. Weir, Sumit R. Majumdar, Ross T. Tsuyuki, Jeffrey Johnson, Lisa Tjosvold, Saskia Vanderloo, Finlay A. McAlister

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Heart Failure · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalOttawa Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineMetforminDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineHeart failureLactic acidosisRelative riskEndocrinologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing controversy regarding the safety and effectiveness of metformin in the setting of heart failure (HF). Therefore, we undertook a systematic review of the trial and nontrial evidence for metformin in patients with diabetes mellitus and HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a comprehensive search for controlled studies, evaluating the association between metformin and morbidity and mortality in people with diabetes mellitus and HF. Two reviewers independently identified citations, extracted data, and evaluated quality. Risk estimates were abstracted and pooled where appropriate. As measures of overall safety, we examined all-cause mortality and all-cause hospitalizations. Nine cohort studies were included; no randomized controlled trials were identified. Most (5 of 9) studies were published in 2010 and were of good quality. Metformin was associated with reduced mortality compared with controls (mostly sulfonylurea therapy): 23% versus 37% (pooled adjusted risk estimates: 0.80; 0.74-0.87; I(2)=15%; P<0.001). No increased risk was observed for metformin in those with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (mortality pooled adjusted risk estimate: 0.91; 0.72-1.14; I(2)=0%; P=0.34), nor in those with HF and chronic kidney disease (pooled adjusted risk estimate: 0.81; 0.64-1.02; P=0.08). Metformin was associated with a small reduction in all-cause hospitalizations (pooled adjusted risk estimate: 0.93; 0.89-0.98; I(2)=0%; P=0.01). Metformin was not associated with increased risk of lactic acidosis. CONCLUSIONS: The totality of evidence indicates that metformin is at least as safe as other glucose-lowering treatments in patients with diabetes mellitus and HF and even in those with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction or concomitant chronic kidney disease. Until trial data become available, metformin should be considered the treatment of choice for patients with diabetes mellitus and HF.

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)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.136
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: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.136
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.012
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations337
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Heart FailureSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207