MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295151945 · doi:10.1002/jbm4.10683

Thiazide Diuretics and Fracture Risk: A Systematic Review and <scp>Meta‐Analysis</scp> of Randomized Clinical Trials

2022· review· en· W4295151945 on OpenAlexafffund
Louis‐Charles Desbiens, N. Khélifi, Yue‐Pei Wang, Félix Lavigne, Véronique Beaulieu, Aboubacar Sidibé, Fabrice Mac‐Way

Bibliographic record

VenueJBMR Plus · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôtel-Dieu de Québec
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversité Laval
KeywordsMedicineThiazideMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialRelative riskFemoral neckInternal medicineConfidence intervalPlaceboOsteoporosisBone mineralSurgeryDiureticAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Thiazide diuretics are commonly used antihypertensive agents. Until today, whether their use reduces fracture risk remains unclear. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of thiazide diuretics’ effects on fractures and bone mineral density (BMD) in randomized clinical trials (RCT) of adults. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the WHO's ICTRP registry were searched from inception to July 31, 2019. Two reviewers assessed studies for eligibility criteria: (i) RCTs; (ii) including adults; (iii) comparing thiazides, alone or in combination; (iv) to placebo or another medication; and (v) reporting fractures or BMD. Conference abstracts and studies comparing thiazides to antiresorptive or anabolic bone therapy were excluded. Bias was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool‐2. The primary outcome was fracture at any anatomical site. Secondary outcomes were osteoporotic fractures, hip fractures, and BMD at femoral neck, lumbar spine, and/or total hip. Fractures were pooled as risk ratios (RRs) using random‐effect models. Prespecified subgroup analyses and post hoc sensitivity analyses were conducted. From 15,712 unique records screened, 32 trials (68,273 patients) met eligibility criteria. Thiazides were associated with decreased fractures at any site (RR = 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77–0.98; I 2 = 0%) and osteoporotic fractures (RR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.69–0.94; I 2 = 0%). Results were consistent in most subgroups and sensitivity analyses. Few studies reported hip fractures, and no association was found between thiazides and this outcome (RR = 0.84; 95% CI 0.67–1.04; I 2 = 0%). Only four studies reported BMD; a meta‐analysis was not conducted because BMD reporting was inconsistent. Trials were deemed at low (3 studies, weight = 3%), some concerns (16 studies; 71%), or high (11 studies; 26%) risk of bias for the primary outcome. In conclusion, thiazide diuretics decreases the risk of fractures at any and at osteoporotic sites in a meta‐analysis of RCTs. Additional studies are warranted in patients with high fracture risk. © 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.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.025
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBMR PlusSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207