Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Урсодеоксихолевая кислота при заболеваниях печени, связанных с муковисцидозом

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000222.pub3Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 15 diciembre 2014see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Fibrosis quística y enfermedades genéticas

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2014 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Katharine Cheng

    Correspondencia a: c/o Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis & Genetic Disorders Review Group, Institute of Child Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    [email protected]

  • Deborah Ashby

    School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK

  • Rosalind L Smyth

    Institute of Child Health, UCL, London, UK

Contributions of authors

Katharine Cheng and Rosalind Smyth independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. Katharine Cheng wrote the text of the review, assisted by Rosalind Smyth, and acts as guarantor of the review.

Deborah Ashby provided statistical advice.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • No sources of support supplied

External sources

  • NHS North West Region R&D Programme, UK.

Declarations of interest

The lead author of this review has been employed by GlaxoSmithKline Research and Development Ltd since late 2004. GlaxoSmithKline does not produce or market any drugs that may fall into the scope of this review.

Acknowledgements

This review was made possible by researchers who kindly provided data and made comments. These include: Sharon O' Brien, Central Middlesex Hospital, London, UK; Manuela Merli, Universita degli Studi di Roma 'La Sapienza', Rome, Italy, Carla Colombo, University of Sassari, Sassary, Italy; Christine Spray, The Children's Hospital, Birmingham, UK; and Carol Seymour, St George's Hospital Medical School, London, UK. It was conducted as an activity of The Cochrane CF and Genetic Disorders Group, supported by grants from North West Region Research and Development and The Cystic Fibrosis Trust. However, these two organisations are not responsible for the contents of this review.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2017 Sep 11

Ursodeoxycholic acid for cystic fibrosis‐related liver disease

Review

Katharine Cheng, Deborah Ashby, Rosalind L Smyth

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000222.pub4

2014 Dec 15

Ursodeoxycholic acid for cystic fibrosis‐related liver disease

Review

Katharine Cheng, Deborah Ashby, Rosalind L Smyth

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000222.pub3

2012 Oct 17

Ursodeoxycholic acid for cystic fibrosis‐related liver disease

Review

Katharine Cheng, Deborah Ashby, Rosalind L Smyth

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000222.pub2

1999 Jul 26

Ursodeoxycholic acid for cystic fibrosis‐related liver disease

Review

Katharine Cheng, Deborah Ashby, Rosalind L Smyth

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000222

Notes

Lepage 1997, Kapustina 2000 and Spray 2000 are all studies awaiting assessment. The contact people of these studies have been written to. If addition data are forthcoming from these trialists, the review will be updated accordingly.

Keywords

MeSH

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 1 Lack of normalisation of any liver enzyme reported in the study.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 1 Lack of normalisation of any liver enzyme reported in the study.

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 2 Lack of normalisation of all liver enzymes reported in the study.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 2 Lack of normalisation of all liver enzymes reported in the study.

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 3 Lack of normalisation of 5' nucleotidase.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 3 Lack of normalisation of 5' nucleotidase.

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 4 Lack of normalisation of aspartate transaminase.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 4 Lack of normalisation of aspartate transaminase.

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 5 Lack of normalisation of alanine transferase.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 5 Lack of normalisation of alanine transferase.

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 6 Lack of normalisation of gammaglutamate transferase.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 6 Lack of normalisation of gammaglutamate transferase.

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 7 Need for liver transplantation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 7 Need for liver transplantation.

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 8 Death related to liver disease.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 8 Death related to liver disease.

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 9 Death due to all causes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 9 Death due to all causes.

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 10 Change in weight (kg).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 10 Change in weight (kg).

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 11 Development of portal hypertension.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 11 Development of portal hypertension.

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 12 Development of complications of portal hypertension.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care'), Outcome 12 Development of complications of portal hypertension.

Comparison 1. UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care')

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Lack of normalisation of any liver enzyme reported in the study Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 6 months

2

16

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.09 [0.01, 1.24]

2 Lack of normalisation of all liver enzymes reported in the study Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 6 months

2

16

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Lack of normalisation of 5' nucleotidase Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 6 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Lack of normalisation of aspartate transaminase Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 6 months

2

14

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

11.0 [0.43, 284.30]

5 Lack of normalisation of alanine transferase Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 6 months

2

12

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.41 [0.04, 4.01]

6 Lack of normalisation of gammaglutamate transferase Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 6 months

2

10

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.02, 6.65]

7 Need for liver transplantation Show forest plot

3

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 0 to 6 months

2

30

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.2 7 to 12 months

1

28

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.79 [0.10, 74.63]

8 Death related to liver disease Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 0 to 6 months

2

30

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8.2 7 to 12 months

0

0

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9 Death due to all causes Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

9.1 0 to 6 months

2

30

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9.2 7 to 12 months

0

0

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10 Change in weight (kg) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

10.1 0 to 6 months

2

30

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.90 [‐1.94, 0.14]

11 Development of portal hypertension Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

11.1 0 to 6 months

2

30

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11.2 7 to 12 months

0

0

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12 Development of complications of portal hypertension Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

12.1 0 to 6 months

2

30

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12.2 7 to 12 months

0

0

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. UDCA versus placebo/no additional treatment (all groups given 'conventional care')