MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107078756 · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2020-iddf.73

IDDF2020-ABS-0093 Statin use and risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3107078756 on OpenAlex
Nikko Theodore Raymundo, Enrik John T. Aguila, Marie Antoinette Lontok

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAbstracts · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyPancreatitisMeta-analysisInternal medicineStatinCochrane LibraryOdds ratioSubgroup analysisAdverse effectGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is one of the most feared complications of ERCP. Much attention has been given on the pharmacologic prevention of this serious adverse event. Evidence suggests that statins may exhibit anti-inflammatory properties in the pancreas, but studies have conflicting results on its role on the prevention of PEP. This study aims to investigate whether the use of statins has a protective effect against PEP. <h3>Methods</h3> A comprehensive, computerized literature search from the PubMed Central, Embase, Cochrane Library, and OVID was performed with the following search terms: statins, lipid-lowering drugs, post-ERCP pancreatitis, pancreatitis, PEP, and prevention. Four cohort studies were selected and validated using the Newcastle-Ottawa criteria. Trial results were combined under a random effects model. The Cochrane Review Manager Software version 5.3 was used for all analyses. <h3>Results</h3> Four cohort studies comprising of 5832 patients were analyzed. In the random effects model, the pooled odds ratio (OR) of PEP occurrence was 0.73; 95% CI (0.36–1.45). The pooled data of the four studies showed a trend towards a beneficial effect of statin use and decreasing risk of PEP but did not show a protective effect of the statin. Likewise, there was a substantial degree of heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup>=87%). Subgroup analysis was done, which include two studies on chronic statin use defined as use for more than six months. It showed a pooled OR of PEP recurrence of 0.41; 95% CI (0.30–0.57) using the random effects model, thereby signifying a protective effect of the drug. The subgroup analysis has also resulted to a statistical homogeneity of the trials (I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). <h3>Conclusions</h3> Chronic statin use for more than six months has a protective effect against PEP. This meta-analysis has shown the potential role of statins as prophylactic agents for PEP. However, further prospective randomized studies are recommended to confirm this relationship.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.264 · 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