MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139068512 · doi:10.1345/aph.1m234

Colchicine for the Primary and Secondary Prevention of Pericarditis: An Update

2009· review· en· W2139068512 on OpenAlexaff
I fan Kuo, Glen J. Pearson, Sheri L. Koshman

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPericarditis and Cardiac Tamponade
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of AlbertaSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePericarditisColchicineAspirinPlaceboSurgeryInternal medicineClinical endpointRegimenRandomized controlled trialPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review the efficacy and safety of colchicine as primary and secondary prophylaxis for pericarditis. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, BIOSIS Previews, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science, and CENTRAL for controlled studies from database inception date to July 2009. Search terms included colchicine, pericarditis, and postpericardiotomy syndrome (PPS). STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Prospective, randomized, controlled trials investigating the use of colchicine in preventing pericarditis were included. Data extracted included design, inclusion criteria, demographics, interventions, background therapy, and pericarditis-related clinical outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data were synthesized qualitatively, given variable study designs. Three trials were identified. A single trial examining primary prevention evaluated the use of colchicine versus placebo for preventing PPS in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass grafting. No significant reduction in PPS was found. Two studies examined secondary prevention of pericarditis, comparing colchicine plus aspirin versus aspirin alone. One study examined using these comparators to treat a first episode of pericarditis. After 3 months, there was a significant reduction in recurrent pericarditis with colchicine plus aspirin (11.7% vs 33%; p = 0.009). Another study examined this same regimen in recurrent pericarditis, finding a significant reduction in recurrence after 6 months (21% vs 45%; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Despite limitations in study designs, current evidence suggests a role for colchicine in the secondary prophylaxis for recurrent pericarditis. The evidence for use of colchicine as primary prophylaxis in PPS is indeterminate; therefore, colchicine cannot be recommended routinely. While colchicine should be recommended for the prevention of recurrent pericarditis, questions regarding the optimal regimen and long-term safety profile need to be further elucidated.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicPericarditis and Cardiac TamponadeFrench-language works237,207