MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Systematic Review of Controlled Clinical Trials on the Use of Ursodeoxycholic Acid for the Prevention of Hepatic Sinusoidal Obstruction Syndrome in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.

2006· article· en· W2528167353 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Tay, Alan Tinmouth, Dean Fergusson, Lothar Huebsch, David Allan

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Canadian institutionsCanadian Blood ServicesUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineUrsodeoxycholic acidContext (archaeology)TransplantationHematopoietic stem cell transplantationRandomized controlled trialClinical trialRelative riskSurgeryGastroenterologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Hepatic sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (HSOS) is a serious life-threatening complication of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Currently, there is no optimal therapeutic strategy and preventive measures are ill-defined. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UA) is well-tolerated, inexpensive oral medication that has been associated with possible benefit as a prophylactic agent. We sought to summarize and quantify the clinical effects of prophylactic ursodeoxycholic acid in the context of HSCT. We undertook a systematic review of studies addressing the use of UA as monotherapy or in combination with other agents in patients undergoing HSCT. Methods: The Search Strategy included MEDLINE (1966 to 4th week of March 2006), EMBASE (1980 to 4th week of March 2006), all EBM Reviews (4th quarter of 2005), Ovid Healthstar (1966 to 4th week of March 2006) and Google Scholar on March 20/2006. A random effects model was used to summarize outcome data. Results: Six studies representing 824 patients were included in the review; 4 randomized clinical trials and 2 historical controlled studies. Three randomized clinical trials comparing prophylactic UA to no treatment demonstrated reduced proportion of HSOS (Relative Risk (RR) 0.34; 95% CI 0.17–0.66). When limited to higher quality studies, the effects remain (RR 0.36; 95%CI 0.15–0.90). Transplant related mortality also appears to be reduced (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.35–0.95. However, UA did not significantly improve the outcomes of acute graft versus host disease (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.53–1.09), relapse (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.46–1.31) or overall survival (RR 1.22; 95 % CI 0.96–1.54). Conclusion: UA is effective for HSOS prophylaxis in patients undergoing HSCT. HSCT centers should consider UA as standard therapy and controlled trials of novel treatments for HSOS should consider the use of UA as a comparator.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.008
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation→French-language works237,207→