MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211064528 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003181

Bile acids for viral hepatitis

2002· review· en· W4211064528 on OpenAlexaff
W Chen, J Liu, Christian Gluud

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUrsodeoxycholic acidInternal medicinePlaceboViral hepatitisCochrane LibraryBlindingGastroenterologyRandomized controlled trialClinical trialHepatitis BPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The viral hepatitides are common causes of liver diseases globally. Trials have assessed bile acids for patients with viral hepatitis, but no consensus was reached regarding their usefulness. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of bile acids for viral hepatitis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches were performed of the trial registers of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group (September 2002), The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (September 2002), EMBASE (September 2002), and The Chinese Biomedical Database (April 2001). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing any dose or duration of bile acids versus placebo or no intervention for viral hepatitis were included, irrespective of language, publication status, or blinding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted the data independently. The methodological quality of the trials was evaluated with respect to generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, double blinding, and follow-up. The outcomes were presented as relative risks (RR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 27 randomised trials of bile acids for hepatitis B or C; none were of high methodological quality. In one trial, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) versus placebo for acute hepatitis B significantly reduced the risk of hepatitis B surface antigen positivity at the end of treatment and serum HBV DNA level at the end of follow-up. In another trial, UDCA versus no intervention for chronic hepatitis B significantly reduced the risk of having abnormal serum transaminase activities at the end of treatment. Twenty-five trials compared bile acids (21 trials UDCA; four trials tauro-UDCA) versus placebo or no intervention with or without co-interventions for chronic hepatitis C. Bile acids did not significantly reduce the risk of having detectable serum HCV RNA (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.07), cirrhosis, or portal and periportal inflammation score at the end of treatment. Bile acids significantly decreased the risk of having abnormal serum alanine aminotransferase activity at the end of treatment (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90) and follow-up (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.98). Bile acids significantly increased the Knodell score (WMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.31) at the end of treatment. No severe adverse events were reported. We did not identify trials including patients with hepatitis A, acute C, D, or E. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Bile acids lead to a significant improvement in serum transaminase activities in hepatitis B and C. There is insufficient evidence either to support or to refute effects on viral markers, mortality, incidence of cirrhosis, or liver histology. Trials with high methodological quality are required.

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 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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.019

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.220 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations18
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207