Hidradenitis suppurativa and major adverse cardiac events: A systematic review and meta-anlaysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. * Review title. Hidradenitis Suppurativa and Major Adverse Cardiac Events: A Systematic Review and Mwta-Analysis. 2. * Anticipated or actual start date. 04/03/2020 3. * Anticipated completion date. 01/05/2020 4. * Stage of review at time of this submission. Preliminary searches - completed Piloting of the study selection process - completed Formal screening of search results against eligibility criteria - completed Data extraction - not started Risk of bias (quality) assessment - not started Data analysis - not started 5. * Named contact. Adrian Bailey 6. * Named contact email. abail082@uottawa.ca 7. * Organisational affiliation of the review. University of Ottawa 8. * Funding sources/sponsors. None 9. * Conflicts of interest. None 10. * Review question. Is Hidradenitis Suppurativa (HS) associated with an increased rate of Major Adverse Cardiac Events compared to the general population? P: Adult (>18 years) patients with HS I: None C: General adult population (>18 years) O: Major Adverse Cardiac Events (myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, cardiovascular associated death) S: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies 11. * Searches. On April 16th, 2020, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase databases were searched from their inception using keywords “hidradenitis”, “cerebrovascular”, “cardiovascular”, and “infarction”, without restrictions. 12. * Condition or domain being studied. Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is an inflammatory disease of the skin and has been associated with various cardiac risk factors. However, there is conflicting evidence as to whether HS is associated with Major Adverse Cardiac Events, such as cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular-associated death. 13. * Participants/population. Adult patients with HS (>18 years of age) 14. * Intervention(s), exposure(s). None 15. * Comparator(s)/control. General adult population (>18 years) 16. * Types of study to be included. Case-control, cohort, and cross-sectional studies. Other study types and grey literature are excluded. 17. * Main outcome(s). Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACEs), such as cerebrovascular accident (CVA), myocardial infarction (MI), and cardiovascular-associated death. * Measures of effect Risk estimates: Incidence rate ratio, Hazard ratio, and Odds ratio. 18. * Data extraction (selection and coding). Two independent reviewers (AB and HL) will extract the study characteristics and results in duplicate. Extracted study characteristics will include information on the authors, publication date, country, study design, data sampling dates, ethnicity of population, number of participants, and adjusted factors in the analysis. The extracted results will include risk estimates, such as Odds ratio, Hazard ratio, incidence rate ratio, and their 95% confidence intervals. Authors will be contacted for data, if required. 19. * Risk of bias (quality) assessment. The risk of bias for each study will be determined using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. 20. * Strategy for data synthesis. Review Manager Software, version 5.3 (Nordic Cochrane Centre, Cochrane Collaboration) will be used to conduct the meta-analysis when three or more studies provide useable data for an outcome. The meta-analysis will be conducted using the Der Simonian–Laird random-effects model, to account for heterogeneity between studies, and effect estimates will be combined using generic inverse variance method. Risk ratios (RR), incidence rate ratios, or hazard ratios will be pooled as they will be considered relative measures of risk for cohort studies. Risk estimates will be reported through odds ratios (OR) for case-control studies. Case-control studies and cohort studies will be analyzed separately given differences in study design. Risk estimates will be combined to estimate the risk of MACEs in both the cohort and case-control studies. The pooled analysis of less than three studies will be presented only for qualitative interpretation. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I² statistic, and an I² greater than 50% will be considered substantial heterogeneity. Funnel plots will be used to assess for publication bias. P<0.05 will be considered significant. 21. * Analysis of subgroups or subsets. Subgroup analysis will be performed for MI, CVA, and cardiovascular-associated death. 22. Language. English 23. * Country. Canada 24. Other registration details. Also submitted for registration on PROSPERO. 25. Dissemination plans. Publication to a major dermatology journal.
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 | 0.011 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".