Domperidone and the risks of sudden cardiac death and ventricular arrhythmia: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims Concerns exist regarding the cardiovascular safety of domperidone. However, many of the previous studies addressing this issue had important limitations. We aimed to examine domperidone and the risks of sudden cardiac death and ventricular arrhythmia through a systematic review and meta‐analysis of observational studies, including an in‐depth methodological assessment. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and CINAHL Plus to identify observational studies examining the association of domperidone and sudden cardiac death and/or ventricular arrhythmia. We assessed study quality in duplicate using the ROBINS‐I tool supplemented by an assessment of specific biases and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) approach. Data were pooled across studies using DerSimonian and Laird random‐effects models. Results Six case–control studies, 1 case‐crossover study and 1 retrospective cohort study were included (n = 480 395). Based on ROBINS‐I, 3 studies had moderate risk of bias, 4 had serious risk, and 1 had critical risk. The overall GRADE rating is moderate. When data were pooled across nonoverlapping studies, domperidone was associated with an increased risk of composite endpoint of sudden cardiac death or ventricular arrhythmia compared to nonuse (adjusted odds ratio: 1.69; 95% confidence interval: 1.46, 1.95; I2: 0%; τ2: 0). This association persisted when restricted to higher‐quality studies (odds ratio: 1.60; 95% confidence interval: 1.30, 1.97; I2: 0%; τ2: 0). Conclusion Domperidone is associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death and ventricular arrhythmia compared to nonuse. Further investigation comparing domperidone to an active comparator and in younger populations are warranted.
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 | 0.025 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".