MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

D-penicillamine for primary sclerosing cholangitis

2006· review· en· W2136672684 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Louise Klingenberg, Wendong Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Diseases and Immunity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlindingPrimary sclerosing cholangitisPlaceboRelative riskInternal medicineCochrane LibraryClinical trialMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialPenicillamineConfidence intervalSurgeryDiseasePathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Primary sclerosing cholangitis is a cholestatic disease. D-penicillamine is suggested as a treatment option due to its copper reducing and immunomodulatory potential. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of D-penicillamine for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Eligible trials were identified through searches of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (August 2005), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2005), EMBASE (1980 to August 2005), Science Citation Index EXPANDED (1945 to August 2005), and reference lists of relevant articles. Authors of trials and pharmaceutical companies known to produce D-penicillamine were also contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing D-penicillamine in any dose, duration, and route of administration versus placebo, no intervention, or other intervention(s). Trials were included irrespective of publication status, year of publication, language, or blinding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both authors selected the trials, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality of the trials with respect to the generation of allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up. The results were reported by intention-to-treat analysis. The outcomes were presented as relative risk (RR) or weighted mean difference (WMD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: One randomised trial was identified and included in the review. It was of low methodological quality. The trial compared D-penicillamine versus placebo in 70 patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Compared with placebo, D-penicillamine therapy had no significant effect on mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.64), liver transplantation (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.17), hepatic histologic progression (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74), or cholangiographic deterioration (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.79). D-penicillamine led to a significant improvement in the serum aspartate aminotransferase (WMD -23.00 U/L; 95% CI -30.66 to -15.34), but not in serum bilirubin level (WMD 0.40 mg/L; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.99) and serum alkaline phosphatases activity (WMD 44.00 U/L; 95% CI -37.89 to 125.89). There were significantly more adverse events in patients receiving D-penicillamine (P = 0.013). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is not sufficient evidence to support or refute the use of D-penicillamine for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. We do not recommend the use of D-penicillamine for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis outside randomised 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 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)0.003
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicLiver Diseases and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207