MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210625489 · doi:10.1002/jbm4.10611

Vitamin D Analogues and Fracture Risk in Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and <scp>Meta‐Analysis</scp> of Randomized Controlled Trials

2022· review· en· W4210625489 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJBMR Plus · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialPlaceboInternal medicineKidney diseaseFemoral neckMeta-analysisRelative riskSubgroup analysisDialysisDenosumabConfidence intervalOsteoporosisPhysical therapySurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Vitamin D receptor agonists (VDRAs) are commonly prescribed in chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, their protective effects on bone remain controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of VDRAs on fracture risk and bone mineral density (BMD) in adult patients with CKD. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov , and the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases from inception to June 19, 2021. We included RCTs comparing VDRAs, to placebo or another medication, in adults with CKD requiring or not dialysis. Conference abstracts and trials involving kidney transplant recipients and/or comparing VDRAs to antiresorptive or anabolic bone therapy were excluded. Primary outcome was fracture at any anatomical site. Secondary outcomes were BMD at femoral neck, lumbar spine, and/or total hip. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted according to baseline demographics, overall risk of bias, and follow‐up time. From 6868 references retrieved, eight RCTs were eligible: five reported fracture, two reported BMD, and one reported both outcomes. As comparator, one study used no VDRAs, one used nutritional intervention and no medication, and six used placebo. In meta‐analysis, VDRAs were not associated with a significant reduction in total fractures in overall (risk ratio = 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.38–1.65, I 2 = 0%, six trials, 1507 participants, 27 fractures) or in prespecified subgroup analyses. Three trials reported BMD at different sites and with different BMD measurements; thus, a meta‐analysis could not be performed. Two RCTs were at high risk of bias, notably because of deviations from the intended interventions. As limitation, we have to mention the low total number of fractures included in our meta‐analysis. In conclusion, current evidence from RCTs is insufficient to associate VDRAs with bone protection in CKD. Further large and long‐term studies specifically designed to evaluate the efficacy of VDRAs on bone outcomes are thus required. © 2022 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.182
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.182
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0870.010
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.325 · 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