Parathyroid Hormone Therapy for Managing Chronic Hypoparathyroidism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy and safety of parathyroid hormone (PTH) therapy for managing long-term hypoparathyroidism is being evaluated in ongoing clinical trials. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available randomized controlled trials to investigate the benefits and harms of PTH therapy and conventional therapy in the management of patients with chronic hypoparathyroidism. To identify eligible studies, published in English, we searched Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to May 2022. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We defined patients' important outcomes and used grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) to provide the structure for quantifying absolute effects and rating the quality of evidence. Seven randomized trials of 12 publications that enrolled a total of 386 patients proved eligible. The follow-up duration ranged from 1 to 36 months. Compared with conventional therapy, PTH therapy probably achieves a small improvement in physical health-related quality of life (mean difference [MD] 3.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5-5.3, minimally important difference 3.0, moderate certainty). PTH therapy results in more patients reaching 50% or greater reduction in the dose of active vitamin D and calcium (relative risk [RR] = 6.5, 95% CI 2.5-16.4, 385 more per 1000 patients, high certainty). PTH therapy may increase hypercalcemia (RR =2.4, 95% CI 1.2-5.04, low certainty). The findings may support the use of PTH therapy in patients with chronic hypoparathyroidism. Because of limitations of short duration and small sample size, evidence from randomized trials is limited regarding important benefits of PTH therapy compared with conventional therapy. Establishing such benefits will require further studies. © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it