Risk of Hemorrhagic Stroke in Patients Exposed to Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are one of the most common pain relief medications, but the risk of hemorrhagic stroke in patients taking these medications is unclear. In this study, our aim was to systematically review, synthesize, and critique the epidemiological studies that evaluate the association between NSAIDs and hemorrhagic stroke risk. We therefore assessed the current state of knowledge, filling the gaps in our existing concern, and make a recommendation for future research. METHODS: We searched for articles in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science between January 1, 1990, and July 30, 2017, which reported on the association between the use of NSAIDs and hemorrhagic stroke. The search was limited to studies published in English. The quality of the included studies was assessed in accordance with the Cochrane guidelines and the Newcastle-Ottawa criteria. Summary risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CI were pooled using a random-effects model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: We selected 15 out of the 785 unique abstracts for full-text review using our selection criteria, and 13 out of these 15 studies met all of our inclusion criteria. The overall pooled RR of hemorrhagic stroke was 1.332 (95% CI 1.105-1.605, p = 0.003) for the random effect model. In the subgroup analysis, a significant risk was observed among meloxicam, diclofenac, and indomethacin users (RR 1.48; 95% CI 1.149-1.912, RR 1.392; 95% CI 1.107-1.751, and RR 1.363; 95% CI 1.088-1.706). In addition, a greater risk was found in studies from Asia (RR 1.490, 95% CI 1.226-1.811) followed by Europe (RR 1.393, 95% CI 1.104-1.757) and Australia (RR 1.361, 95% CI 0.755-2.452). CONCLUSION: Our results indicated that the use of NSAIDs is significantly associated with a higher risk of developing hemorrhagic stroke. These results should be interpreted with caution because they may be confounded owing to the observational design of the individual studies. Nevertheless, we recommend that NSAIDs should be used judiciously, and their efficacy and safety should be monitored proactively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.064 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".