MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380360989 · doi:10.1186/s10195-023-00707-5

Hormone replacement therapy in women and risk of carpal tunnel syndrome: a systematic review and metaanalysis

2023· review· en· W4380360989 on OpenAlex
Worapaka Manosroi, Pichitchai Atthakomol, Phichayut Phinyo, Pojsakorn Danpanichkul

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Nerve Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFaculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai UniversityChiang Mai University
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioCarpal tunnel syndromeConfidence intervalMeta-analysisInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialHormone replacement therapy (female-to-male)Subgroup analysisRelative riskGynecologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common entrapment mononeuropathy. Menopausal status and/or estrogen level may play a role in CTS. The evidence regarding the association between hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in postmenopausal women and CTS is still conflicting. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the association between carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and women using hormone replacement therapy (HRT). METHODS: A search was conducted in the PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases, from their inception through July 2022. Studies which reported on the association between any type of HRT use and the risk of developing CTS in postmenopausal women compared to a control group were included. Studies which did not include a control group were excluded. Of the 1573 articles extracted from database searches, seven studies involving 270,764 women were included of which 10,746 had CTS. The association between CTS and HRT use was evaluated using the pooled odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) under random-effects modelling. Risk of bias in each study was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and version 2 of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials (RoB 2). RESULTS: 97.0%, Q-test p-value < 0.001). Subgroup analysis of groups in non-randomized controlled studies showed a significantly increased risk of CTS, while groups in randomized controlled studies showed a decreased risk of CTS (pooled OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.24-2.83 versus pooled OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69-0.92, respectively) with the p-value of group difference < 0.001. The risk of bias in most of the included studies was estimated to be low. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis supports the safety of using HRT in postmenopausal women with potential risk factors for CTS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I, Prognosis. REGISTRATION: INPLASY (202280018).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.290 · 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