MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093931302 · doi:10.1007/s40266-020-00806-6

Anticholinergic Burden and Fractures: A Systematic Review with Methodological Appraisal

2020· review· en· W3093931302 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jonas Reinold, Wiebke Schäfer, Lara Christianson, Francesco Barone‐Adesi, Oliver Riedel, Federica Pisa

Bibliographic record

VenueDrugs & Aging · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLeibniz-Gemeinschaft
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyAnticholinergicMEDLINEOsteoporosisMeta-analysisPhysical therapyData extractionInternal medicineRelative riskSystematic reviewConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Medications with anticholinergic activity (MACs) are used to treat diseases common in older adults. Evidence on the association between anticholinergic burden (AB) and increased risk of fractures and osteoporosis or reduced bone mineral density (BMD) is inconsistent. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of observational studies on AB with fractures and osteoporosis or reduced BMD and provide methodological appraisal of included studies. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and CENTRAL as well as grey literature from database inception up to August 2020. Eligibility criteria were: observational design, AB-exposure measured through a scale, fracture of any type or osteoporosis or reduced BMD as outcome, and reported measure of association between exposure and outcome. No restrictions related to time, language or type of data were applied. Eligibility and risk of bias assessment as well as data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the RTI Item Bank. RESULTS: The majority of the nine included studies had low risk of bias but heterogeneous methodology. No study used a new user design. Seven studies reported an increased risk of fractures associated with AB. In four studies using the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS), adjusted risk of fractures was increased by 2-61% for ARS = 1, by 0-97% for ARS = 2, by 19-84% for ARS = 3, and by 56-96% for ARS ≥ 4; in three studies the ARS was aggregated, risk increased by 39% for ARS = 1-2 and 17% for ARS = 2-3. Two studies reported increased risk of fractures of 14 and 52% in the highest AB-category and one study reported that change in ARS of ≥ 3 during hospitalization was associated with a 321% increased risk in fractures. Two studies did not find an association between AB and fractures. The association between AB and osteoporosis or reduced BMD could only be assessed in two studies, one reporting increased risk of lower BMD at Ward's triangle, the other reporting no association between AB and BMD T-score change at the femoral neck. DISCUSSION: Our study suggests an association between AB and increased risk of fractures with possible dose-exposure gradient in studies using the ARS. The low number of studies and heterogeneity of methods calls for the conduct of more studies. We conducted a study investigating the risk of fractures associated with anticholinergic burden, which is the result of taking one or more medication with anticholinergic activity. The results of our study suggest that persons who experience anticholinergic burden might have a higher risk of fractures. However, since we were only able to include nine studies, more studies conducted in a similar way are needed.

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)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.177
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.177
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.018
Bibliometrics0.0160.017
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations29
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrugs & AgingSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207