Comparison of treatment outcome between glucocorticoids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in subacute thyroiditis patients—a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Subacute thyroiditis (SAT) is a self-limiting and inflammatory thyroid disease. Although SAT usually improves on its own within weeks, it needs treatment when patients have pain, fever, and symptoms of thyrotoxicosis. Therapeutic drugs mainly include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and glucocorticoids. Currently, there is no systematic review or meta-analysis of the comparison of outcomes between NSAIDs and glucocorticoids for the treatment of SAT. Objectives: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the outcomes in subacute thyroiditis patients treated with glucocorticoids or NSAIDs. Data sources: Using the four electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wanfang database and Web of Science. All publications until 21 June 2023 were searched. The reference lists of all selected articles were independently screened to identify additional studies left out in the initial search. Study selection: The literature comparing outcomes between glucocorticoids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for patients with subacute thyroiditis will be included. Data extraction and synthesis: Two independent investigators (Anqi Yuan and Jialu Wu) extracted the data following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) and then evaluated the quality of the eligible studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Fixed-effects models for the meta-analyses were applied. Heterogeneity was assessed with the chi-squared (x²) test (Cochran's Q) and inconsistency index (I²). The robustness of the results was tested with the sensitivity analyses. The bias of publication was assessed with the Harbord test. Main outcomes and measures: The incidence of permanent hypothyroidism in SAT patients treated with corticosteroids or NSAIDs. Results: Our study included a total of ten comparative cohort studies with 1337 participants. We found that the incidence of developing permanent hypothyroidism in the SAT patients who received glucocorticoids treatment was significantly lower than those who received NSAIDs treatment. (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.88; P = 0.01). The risk of permanent hypothyroidism in patients who received prednisone at an average initial dose < 40 mg/d was significantly lower than that in patients who received NSAIDs (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.14-0.94; P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of permanent hypothyroidism between SAT patients who received an average initial dose ≥ 40 mg/d of prednisone and those who received only NSAIDs (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.14-3.53; P = 0.67). In addition, the recurrence rate was observably higher in those receiving glucocorticoids than in those receiving NSAIDs (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.12-3.5; p = 0.02). The recurrence rate was significantly higher in patients with an average initial prednisone dose of < 40 mg/d than in the NSAIDs group. There was no significant difference in the recurrence rate between patients in the mean initial prednisone dose ≥ 40 mg/d group and those in the NSAIDs group. Conclusions and relevance: In this meta-analysis, we compared the treatment outcomes of SAT patients between glucocorticoids and NSAIDs. Our results indicated that glucocorticoid treatment was associated with a lower incidence of permanent hypothyroidism than NSAID treatment. Patients treated with NSAIDs might have a lower recurrence rate. This finding might help to understand the outcome of the disease when choosing different drugs and help physicians to make appropriate decisions. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023427332.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.030 | 0.057 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".