Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25059971›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2014

Extended-release nifedipine and the risk of intestinal obstruction: a population-based study.

David N Juurlink, Chelsea Hellings, Tara Gomes, Anjie Huang, J Michael Paterson, David R Urbach, Muhammad M Mamdani, Canadian Drug Safety and Effectiveness Research Network (CDSERN)

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

David N JuurlinkThe Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Chelsea HellingsThe Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Tara GomesThe Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Applied Health Research Center, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Anjie HuangThe Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
J Michael PatersonThe Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
David R UrbachThe Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Muhammad M MamdaniThe Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Applied Health Research Center, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Department of Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Canadian Drug Safety and Effectiveness Research Network (CDSERN)
Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences · CAUniversity of Toronto · CASunnybrook Research Institute

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research ETG 92247)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine the risk of bowel obstruction in older adults during treatment with extended-release nifedipine compared with patients treated with amlodipine.

designRetrospective cohort study using multiple linked healthcare databases.

settingOntario, Canada from 1 April 1997 to 31 December 2010.

participantsWe identified patients aged 66 years and older who started treatment with Adalat XL, an extended-release nifedipine product employing a tablet delivery system associated with mechanical bowel obstruction. For comparison, we studied patients receiving amlodipine, a long-acting calcium channel blocker that does not utilise the same delivery system and has not been implicated as a cause of bowel obstruction. Propensity score matching was used to ensure similarity of patients receiving the two drugs. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: HR for the association between extended-release nifedipine relative to amlodipine and hospitalisation for bowel obstruction during therapy.

resultsOver the 13-year study period, we identified 103 657 patients treated with extended-release nifedipine and 204 733 patients treated with amlodipine. In these two groups, 591 (0.6%) and 1185 (0.6%) of patients were hospitalised for bowel obstruction, respectively. We found no difference in the risk of bowel obstruction among patients treated with extended-release nifedipine compared with amlodipine (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.24).

conclusionsBowel obstruction during treatment with extended-release nidefipine is rare, and the risk is not appreciably greater than that during treatment with amlodipine.

Indexed as

AgedAmlodipineCalcium Channel BlockersCohort StudiesDelayed-Action PreparationsFemaleHumansIntestinal ObstructionMaleNifedipineRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentAmlodipineCalcium Channel BlockersDelayed-Action PreparationsNifedipineGASTROENTEROLOGY

Identifiers

PMID25059971
PMCPMC4120301
OpenAlexW2107279815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.