MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6920472395 · doi:10.60692/ccvbj-zk671

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

2023· article· en· W6920472395 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Nerve Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOdds ratioCarpal tunnel syndromeConfidence intervalHormone replacement therapy (female-to-male)Meta-analysisRandomized controlled trialSubgroup analysisHormone therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract 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 HRT use showed no statistically significant association with a higher risk of CTS with pooled odds ratio (OR) 1.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99–2.23, and p = 0.06, although high heterogeneity among the studies was observed ( I 2 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicPeripheral Nerve DisordersFrench-language works237,207