MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 14289: Anti-Inflammatory Therapies to Prevent Cardiovascular Events: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2023· review· en· W4389958860 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin E. Boczar, Sheojung Shin, Alexander Pearson, Saba Shahab, Aishwarya Geejo, Sarah Visintini, Christophe A. Fehlmann, Kathryn Bezzina, Rob Beanlands, George A. Wells

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal Regulation and Hypertension
Canadian institutionsOttawa Heart InstituteÉlisabeth Bruyère HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisMaceInternal medicineSubgroup analysisMEDLINEPercutaneous coronary interventionMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Anti-inflammatory therapies have been increasingly investigated for the reduction of cardiovascular (CV) events. The goal of this study was to summarize and compare the relative effectiveness of anti-inflammatory medications for the reduction of CV events in a systematic review and network-meta-analysis. Methods: In our systematic review, we included studies from Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, as well as clinical trial registry websites, Europe PMC, and conference abstract hand-searching. Randomized controlled trials were selected for inclusion if they included at least one anti-inflammatory treatment and involved patients with CAD. Bayesian network meta-analyses was performed to calculate risk estimates using random effects analyses in patients with ACS as well as stable CAD for the reduction of MACE. Results: A total of 14,699 studies were screened; sixty-one articles, all randomized control trials, met eligibility criteria for inclusion. A total of 41,647 patients were included in the stable CAD network analysis and 29,388 patients were included in the ACS network analysis. In the ACS analysis, both non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) use (OR: 0.30, 95% Credible Limits [CrI]: 0.11-0.74) and colchicine use were associated with a significant reduction in MACE compared to control (OR: 0.71, 95% Credible Limits [CrI]: 0.58-0.88). In the stable CAD analysis, both corticosteroids (OR: 0.44, 95% CrI: 0.26-0.73) and colchicine (OR: 0.65, 95% Credible Limits [CrI]: 0.54-0.77) were associated with a significant reduction in MACE compared to control. Conclusions: In patients with acute coronary syndromes, NSAIDs and colchicine were associated with a reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiac events. In patients with stable coronary artery disease, both colchicine and steroids were associated with a reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiac events. For a comprehensive analysis of benefits and harms of anti-inflammatory therapies, large comparative studies or network meta-regression analyses of patient-level data will be required. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO registry—CRD4202230328

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)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
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: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.032
Bibliometrics0.0150.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicHormonal Regulation and HypertensionFrench-language works237,207