MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809589491 · doi:10.3389/fphar.2018.00238

Efficacy and Safety of Cyclosporine in Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2018· review· en· W2809589491 on OpenAlexaff
Firdaus Abd Rahman, Siti Syarihan Abdullah, Wan Zanariah W. A. Manan, Loh Teng‐Hern Tan, Chin Fen Neoh, Long Chiau Ming, Kok‐Gan Chan, Learn−Han Lee, Bey Hing Goh, Shahrzad Salmasi, David Bin-Chia Wu, Tahir Mehmood Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pharmacology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Structural Anomalies and Repair
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversiti Malaya
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisPlaceboMyocardial infarctionEjection fractionRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineHeart failureSystematic reviewCardiologyMEDLINEPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are various studies that have addressed the use of Cyclosporine among patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, to date there is hardly any concise and systematically structured evidence that debate on the efficacy and safety of Cyclosporine in AMI patients. The aim of this review is to systematically summarize the overall evidence from published trials, and to conduct a meta-analysis in order to determine the efficacy and safety of Cyclosporine versus placebo or control among patients with AMI. All randomized control trial (RCT) published in English language from January 2000 to August 2017 were included for the systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of six RCTs met the inclusion and were hence included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Based on the performed meta-analysis, no significant difference was found between Cyclosporine and placebo in terms of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement (mean difference 1.88; 95% CI -0.99 to 4.74; P= 0.2), mortality rate (OR 1.01; 95% Cl 0.60 to 1.67, P=0.98) and recurrent MI occurrence (OR 0.65; 95% Cl 0.29 to 1.45, P=0.29), with no evidence of heterogeneity, when given to patients with AMI. Cyclosporine also did not significantly lessen the rate of rehospitalisation in AMI patients when compared to placebo (OR 0.91; 95% Cl 0.58 to 1.42, P=0.68), with moderate heterogeneity (I2=46%). There was also no significant improvement in heart failure events between Cyclosporine and placebo in AMI patients (OR 0.63; 95% Cl 0.31 to 1.29, P=0.21; I2=80%). No serious adverse events were reported in Cyclosporine group across all studies suggesting that Cyclosporine is well tolerated when given to patients with AMI. The use of Cyclosporine in this group of patients, however, did not result in better clinical outcomes versus placebo at improving LVEF, mortality rate, recurrent MI, rehospitalisation and heart failure event.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.040
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations27
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PharmacologySame topicCardiac Structural Anomalies and RepairFrench-language works237,207