Effects of sarpogrelate hydrochloride on peripheral arterial disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to assess the efficacy and safety of sarpogrelate hydrochloride by comparing the effects of sarpogrelate with conventional treatment on the improvement of symptoms in PAD patients. METHODS: The search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library database, CNKI, CBM for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) before January 1st, 2019. Inclusion and exclusion of studies, assessment of quality, outcome measures, data extraction and synthesis were completed by two reviewers independently. The meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: Totally, 12 eligible RCTs were included in our analysis. Comparing the results of sarpogrelate group and control group, sarpogrelate significantly improved ankle-brachial index (ABI) levels (SMD = 0.05, [95%CI 0.20 to 0.74, P = .0005]), dorsalis pedis artery blood flow (MD = 0.16, [95%CI 0.09 to 0.23, P < .001]) and pain-free walking distance (PFWD) (MD = 201.86, [95%CI 9.34 to 394.38, P = .04]). The pooled analysis showed that a significant decrease in hsCRP (MD = -0.57, [95%CI -1.12 to -0.02, P = .04]) and IL-6 (MD = 1.48,[95%CI 0.39 to 2.56, P = .008]) was observed in the sarpogrelate treatment. CONCLUSION: Sarpogrelate was effective for improving the symptoms of PAD and showed good tolerability without significant adverse events.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".