MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Thiazide diuretics and the risk of hip fracture

2011· review· en· W2152899633 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
KoKo Aung, Thwe Htay

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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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

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

Citations140
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicSodium Intake and HealthFrench-language works237,207