MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Amantadine and rimantadine for preventing and treating influenza A in adults

2004· reference-entry· en· W4249230017 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Jefferson, Jonathan J Deeks, Vittorio Demicheli, Daniela Rivetti, M Rudin

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2004
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsOlds College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRimantadineAmantadineMedicineAdverse effectCochrane LibraryPlaceboMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalClinical trialInfluenza A virusInternal medicinePharmacologyVirologyVirusAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Amantadine hydrochloride and rimantadine hydrochloride have antiviral properties, but these drugs are not widely used due to a lack of knowledge of their potential value and concerns about possible adverse effects. Objectives The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness and safety ("effects") of amantadine and rimantadine in healthy adults. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2003), MEDLINE (January 1966 to November week 2, 2003), EMBASE (January 1990 to September 2003) and the reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers, researchers and authors. Selection criteria Randomised and quasi‐randomised studies comparing amantadine and/or rimantadine with placebo, control antivirals or no intervention, or comparing doses or schedules of amantadine and/or rimantadine in healthy adults. Data collection and analysis For prevention trials the numbers of participants with clinical influenza (influenza‐like‐illness or ILI), i.e. confirmed influenza A, and adverse effects were analysed. Analysis for treatment trials included the mean duration of fever and length of hospital stay, and the number of adverse effects. Main results Amantadine prevented 25% of ILI cases (95% confidence interval (CI) 13% to 36%), and 61% of influenza A cases (95% CI 35% to 76%). Amantadine reduced duration of fever by one day (95% CI 0.7 to 1.3). Rimantadine demonstrated comparable effectiveness, but there were fewer trials and the results for prevention were not statistically significant. Both amantadine and rimantadine induced significant gastrointestinal adverse effects. Adverse effects of the central nervous system and study withdrawals were significantly more common with amantadine than rimantadine. Authors' conclusions Amantadine and rimantadine have comparable effectiveness in the prevention and treatment of influenza A in healthy adults, although rimantadine causes fewer adverse effects than amantadine. [This abstract was prepared centrally.]

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations42
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207