MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343670401 · doi:10.1002/pds.3941

The effect of angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker use on mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease: a meta‐analysis of observational studies

2016· review· en· W2343670401 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuchen Qin, Tao Chen, Qi Chen, Jia Yi Lv, Na Qi, Cheng Wu, Jia He

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioInternal medicineMeta-analysisPublication biasConfidence intervalKidney diseaseSubgroup analysisRenal functionAngiotensin-converting enzymeCardiologyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: There has been much controversy over the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs) on patients with renal dysfunction. The purpose of this study was to summarize the evidence regarding the effect of ACEIs/ARBs administration on mortality in patients with nondialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD) by using a meta-analytic approach. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for studies on the effect of ACEIs/ARBs administration on mortality in patients with nondialysis-dependent CKD published before March 2015. Summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals were derived using the random-effects model, no matter whether the heterogeneity between the included studies was of statistical significance or not. Subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses, and publication bias tests were performed. RESULTS: Up to 25 March 2015, 10 cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. The hazard risk of the association between ACEIs/ARBs administration and overall mortality was 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.78-0.87) using a random-effects model with no heterogeneity (heterogeneity test I(2) = 43.8%, p = 0.067) and publication bias (Egger's test, p = 0.763). The subgroup was divided according to estimated glomerular filtration rate, duration of follow-up, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale star, and proportion of patients with common complications including heart failure, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. Improved survival outcomes were observed in all subgroups analysis. Sensitivity analysis proved that overall estimated effect was robust. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggested that the use of ACEIs/ARBs in patients with nondialysis-dependent CKD was associated with improved survival. However, randomized studies are needed to confirm these findings and further establish causal relationship. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.064
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacoepidemiology and Drug SafetySame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207