MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Artichoke leaf extract for treating hypercholesterolaemia

2009· review· en· W4238454924 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara Wider, Max H Pittler, Jo Thompson Coon, Edzard Ernst

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonRemoved;
Date5/19/2016 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?Yes

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsVictoria Park
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboMeta-analysisCINAHLMEDLINEInternal medicineClinical trialRelative riskRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalTraditional medicinePhysical therapyAlternative medicinePsychological interventionPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hypercholesterolaemia is directly associated with an increased risk for coronary heart disease and other sequelae of atherosclerosis. Artichoke leaf extract (ALE) has been implicated in lowering cholesterol levels. Whether ALE is truly effective for this indication, however, is still a matter of debate. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence of ALE versus placebo or reference medication for treating hypercholesterolaemia defined as mean total cholesterol levels of at least 5.17 mmol/L (200 mg/dL). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2008 Issue 2, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and CINAHL from their respective inception until June 2008; CISCOM until June 2001. Reference lists of articles were checked. Manufacturers of preparations containing artichoke extract and experts on the subject were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ALE mono-preparations compared with placebo or reference medication for patients with hypercholesterolaemia were included. Trials assessing ALE as one of several active components in a combination preparation or as a part of a combination treatment were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted systematically and methodological quality was evaluated using a standard scoring system and the Cochrane risk of bias assessment. The screening of studies, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality were performed independently by two reviewers. Disagreements in the evaluation of individual trials were resolved through discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Three RCTs (262 participants) met all inclusion criteria. In one trial the total cholesterol level in participants receiving ALE decreased by 4.2% from 7.16 (0.62) mmol/L to 6.86 (0.68) mmol/L after 12 weeks and increased from 6.90 (0.49) mmol/L to 7.04 (0.61) mmol/L in patients receiving placebo, the total difference being statistically significant (P = 0.025). In a further trial ALE reduced total cholesterol levels by 18.5% from 7.74 mmol/L to 6.31 mmol/L after 42 +/- 3 days of treatment whereas the placebo reduced cholesterol by 8.6% from 7.69 mmol/L to 7.03 mmol/L (P = 0.00001). Another trial did state that ALE significantly reduced blood cholesterol compared with placebo in a sub-group of patients with baseline total cholesterol levels of more than 230 mg/dL (P < 0.05). Trial reports indicate mild, transient and infrequent adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some data from clinical trials assessing ALE for treating hypercholesterolaemia exist. There is an indication that ALE has potential in lowering cholesterol levels, the evidence is, however, as yet not convincing. The limited data on safety suggest only mild, transient and infrequent adverse events with the short term use of ALE.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations37
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207