MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3091682145 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-036960

Antihypertensive therapies in moderate or severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3091682145 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Sen, Erin Chung, Christopher Neil, Thomas H. Marwick

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Heart Foundation of Australia
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisInternal medicineBlood pressureRandomized controlled trialPlaceboCardiologyRelative riskCochrane LibraryObservational studyPublication biasSystematic reviewMEDLINEConfidence intervalPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Hypertension confers a poor prognosis in moderate or severe aortic stenosis (AS), however, antihypertensive therapy (AHT) is often not prescribed due to the perceived deleterious effects of vasodilation and negative inotropes. Objective To assess the efficacy and safety outcomes of AHT in adults with moderate or severe AS. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and grey literature were searched without language restrictions up to 9 September 2019. Study eligibility criteria, appraisal and synthesis methods Two independent reviewers performed screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessments from a systematic search of observational studies and randomised controlled trials comparing AHT with a placebo or no AHT in adults with moderate or severe AS for any parameter of efficacy and safety outcomes. Conflicts were resolved by the third reviewer. Meta-analysis with pooled effect sizes using random-effects model, were estimated in R . Main outcome measures Mortality, Left Ventricular (LV) Mass Index, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and LV ejection fraction Results From 3025 publications, 31 studies (26 500 patients) were included in the qualitative synthesis and 24 studies in the meta-analysis. AHT was not associated with mortality when all studies were pooled, but heterogeneity was substantial across studies. The effect size of AHT differed according to drug class. Renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) were associated with reduced risk of mortality (Pooled HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.80, p=0.006), The differences in changes of haemodynamic or echocardiographic parameters from baseline with and without AHT did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion AHT appears safe, is well tolerated. RAASi were associated with clinical benefit in patients with moderate or severe AS.

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)0.030
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.039
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.248
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→