MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Thiazide diuretics and the risk of hip fracture

2011· review· en· W2152899633 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicSodium Intake and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThiazideHip fractureObservational studyCohort studyRandomized controlled trialCohortRelative riskInternal medicineCINAHLPhysical therapyOsteoporosisDiureticConfidence intervalPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Thiazide diuretics are one of the most commonly prescribed antihypertensive agents worldwide. Thiazides reduce urinary calcium excretion. Chronic ingestion of thiazides is associated with higher bone mineral density. It has been suggested that thiazides may prevent hip fracture. However, there are concerns that diuretics, by increasing the risk of fall in elderly, could potentially negate its beneficial effects on hip fracture. OBJECTIVES: To assess any association between the use of thiazide diuretics and the risk of hip fracture in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched eligible studies up to December 2008 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, the Database of Abstracts of Review of Effects (DARE) and reference lists of previous reviews and included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials and observational studies, which assessed the association between thiazide diuretic use and hip fracture. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied the selection criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of each study selected. The results were summarized descriptively and quantitatively. Cohort studies and case control studies were analysed separately. MAIN RESULTS: No randomized control trials were found. Twenty-one observational studies with nearly four hundred thousand participants were included. Six of them were cohort studies and 15 were case-control studies. Two cohort studies appear to involve the same cohort so there were only 5 unique ones. The risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Five cohort studies had low risk of bias and one had moderate risk of bias. Seven case control studies had low risk of bias and 8 had moderate risk of bias. Meta-analysis of cohort studies showed that thiazide use was associated with a reduction in risk of hip fracture by 24%, pooled RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.64-0.89; p = 0.0009). We chose not to provide a pooled summary statistics for case-control studies because of high heterogeneity (Tau(2) = 0.03, I(2) = 62%, p = 0.0008). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Thiazides appear to reduce the risk of hip fracture based on observational studies. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

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.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.266 · 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