MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sodium Restriction in Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

2022· review· en· W4308955139 on OpenAlexaff
Eloisa Colin-Ramírez, Nariman Sepehrvand, Sarah Rathwell, Heather J. Ross, Jorge Escobedo, Peter S. Macdonald, Richard W. Troughton, Clara Saldarriaga, Fernando Laņas, Robert N. Doughty, Finlay A. McAlister, Justin A. Ezekowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Heart Failure · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicSodium Intake and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of AlbertaSt. Peter's HospitalCanadian VIGOUR Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineCINAHLHeart failureMEDLINEConfidence intervalPsychological interventionNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sodium restriction is a nonpharmacologic treatment suggested by practice guidelines for the management of patients with heart failure (HF). In this study, we synthesized the data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of sodium restriction on clinical outcomes in patients with HF. METHODS: In this aggregate data meta-analysis, Cochrane Central, MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), Embase Ovid, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) Plus databases were searched up to April 2, 2022. RCTs were included if they investigated the effects of sodium/salt restriction as compared to no restriction on clinical outcomes in patients with HF. Outcomes of interest included mortality, hospitalization, change in New York Heart Association functional class, and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs were identified (834 and 871 patients in intervention and control groups, respectively). Sodium restriction did not reduce the risk of all-cause death (odds ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.58-1.58]), hospitalization (odds ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.62-1.13]), or the composite of death/hospitalization (odds ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.63-1.23]). The results were similar in different subgroups, except for the numerically lower risk of death with reduced sodium intake reported in RCTs with dietary sodium at the 2000 to 3000 mg/d range as opposed to <2000 mg/d (and in RCTs with versus without fluid restriction as a co-intervention). Among RCTs reporting New York Heart Association change, 2 RCTs (which accounted for two-thirds of the data) showed improvement in New York Heart Association class with sodium restriction. Substantial heterogeneity existed for QoL: 6 RCTs showed improvement of QoL and 4 RCTs showed no improvement of sodium restriction on QoL. CONCLUSIONS: In a meta-analysis of RCTs, sodium restriction was not associated with fewer deaths or hospitalizations in patients with HF. Dietary sodium restriction may be associated with improvements in symptoms and QoL.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.032
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations56
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Heart FailureSame topicSodium Intake and HealthFrench-language works237,207