scholarly journals Integrated Western and Chinese Medicine Interventions for Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chi Him Sum ◽  
Jessica Ching ◽  
Hong-Wei Zhang ◽  
Steven Loo ◽  
Cho Wing Lo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Placebo Treatment ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Clinical Severity ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Surface Damages

Abstract BackgroundAtopic Dermatitis (AD) is a chronic relapsing skin disease characterized by recurring episodes of itchiness with skin erythema and surface damages. Chinese medicine (CM) is widely used for the management of AD in China not only by its own, but also used in combination with conventional therapy (integrated Western-Chinese medicine, ICWM) in China. Although many clinical trials on the effectiveness of ICWM on AD have been reported; however, up to date, no sound evidence has been established on the clinical effectiveness and safety of ICWM for AD. ObjectivesTo systematically review the currently available clinical evidence on the clinical effectiveness and safety of ICWM for AD. MethodsRandomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials, which investigated ICWM interventions with at least one control group using the same conventional interventions, no treatment or placebo treatment, were included. Four English (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED) and three Chinese (CNKI, CBM, WanFang Med) databases were searched. Risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane’s tool. Meta-analysis were performed to pool the data. ResultsFrom 1473 database entries, 55 studies were included, of which 5953 participants aged between 35 days to 67 years old were involved. Duration of treatment ranged from 1 to 24 weeks. Only 2 studies were judged to be at low risk of bias, 3 studies at unclear risk of bias, and the other 50 studies at high risk of bias. The research findings suggested that ICWM was superior over WM alone in improving clinical severity of AD (measured by EASI, SCORAD), health-related quality of life (measured by CDLQI, DLQI), long term control of AD (recurrence rate), patients/ investigator global score (effectiveness rate), and serum IgE level. No more adverse events associated with ICWM was found when compared with WM alone. ConclusionAdopting ICWM may be superior to using WM alone in managing AD without risk of more adverse events. However, the current available evidence is still too weak to generate conclusive results.

scholarly journals Integrated Chinese and western medicine interventions for atopic dermatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chi Him Sum ◽  
Jessica Ching ◽  
Hongwei Zhang ◽  
Steven Loo ◽  
Cho Wing Lo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atopic Dermatitis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Western Medicine ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Clinical Severity ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Increased Risk

Abstract Background Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic relapsing skin disease characterized by recurring episodes of itchiness with skin erythema and surface damages. Chinese medicine (CM) is widely used for the management of AD in China not only by its own, but also used in combination with conventional therapy (integrated Chinese-Western medicine, ICWM). Although many clinical trials on the effectiveness of ICWM on AD have been conducted, however, up to date, no sound evidence has been established on the clinical effectiveness and safety of ICWM for AD. Objectives To systematically review the currently available clinical evidence on the clinical effectiveness and safety of ICWM for AD. Methods Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, which investigated ICWM interventions with at least one control group using the same conventional interventions, no treatment or placebo treatment, were included. Four English (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED) and three Chinese (CNKI, CBM, WanFang Med) databases were searched. Risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane’s tool. Meta-analysis was performed to pool the data. Results From 1473 entries, 55 studies were included, involving 5953 participants aged between 35 days and 67 years old. Duration of treatment ranged from 1 to 24 weeks. Only 2 studies were judged to have low risk of bias, 3 studies had unclear risk of bias, and the other 50 studies were with high risk of bias. ICWM was found to be superior over WM alone in improving clinical severity of AD (measured by EASI, SCORAD), health-related quality of life (measured by CDLQI, DLQI), long term control of AD (recurrence rate), patients/investigator global score (clinical effectiveness rate), and serum IgE level. Adverse events associated with ICWM were found to be comparable with WM alone. Conclusion ICWM seems to produce superior treatment response than WM alone in managing AD without increased risk of adverse events. However, the current available evidence remains too weak to make a conclusive decision.

scholarly journals Effect of consumption of animal milk compared to infant formula for non-breastfed/mixed-fed infants 6–11 months of age: a systematic review (protocol)

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e046370
Author(s):  
Aamer Imdad ◽  
Julie Melissa Ehrlich ◽  
Joseph Catania ◽  
Emily Tanner-Smith ◽  
Abigail Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Infant Formula ◽  
Breast Feeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
World Health ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Breastfed Infants ◽  
Evaluation Approach ◽  
Animal Milk

IntroductionPrevalence rates of breastfeeding remain low even though the World Health Organization (WHO) and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend exclusive breast feeding for the first 6 months of life in combination with appropriate complementary feeding beyond six 6 months of age. There have been several studies that address the implication of drinking animal milk and/or infant formula on children’s health and development when breast feeding is not offered during the first year of life. Vast improvements have been made in infant formula design, which may increase its benefits compared with animal’s milk. The objective of this review is therefore to synthesise the most recent evidence on the effects of the consumption of animal milk compared with infant formula in non-breastfed or mixed breastfed infants aged 6–11 months.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed the effect of animal milk compared with formula or mixed-fed (breastmilk and formula) on infants aged 6–11 months. The primary outcomes of interest include anaemia, gastrointestinal blood loss, weight for age, height for age and weight for height. We will include randomised and non-randomised studies with a control group. We will use the Cochrane risk of bias tools to assess the risk of bias. We will use meta-analysis to pool findings if the identified studies are conceptually homogenous and data are available from more than one study. We will assess the overall quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.Ethics and disseminationThis is a systematic review, so no patients will be directly involved in the design or development of this study. The findings from this systematic review will be disseminated to relevant patient populations and caregivers and will guide the WHO’s recommendations on formula consumption versus animal milk in infants aged 6–11 months.Trial registration numberCRD42020210925.

scholarly journals Beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review of published and unpublished data with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
Marija Barbateskovic ◽  
Caroline Kamp Jørgensen ◽  
Michael Pascal Hengartner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Harmful Effects

Abstract Background Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide. Antidepressants are frequently used to treat major depressive disorder. It has been shown repeatedly that antidepressants seem to reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the clinical importance of the effect sizes seems questionable. Both beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants have not previously been sufficiently assessed. The main objective of this review will be to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. Methods/design A systematic review with meta-analysis will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2 (ROB2), our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control for random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases from their inception to the present. Clinical study reports will be obtained from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results of the literature searches, extract data, and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing one or more antidepressants with placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following active agents will be included: agomelatine, amineptine, amitriptyline, bupropion, butriptyline, cianopramine, citalopram, clomipramine, dapoxetine, demexiptiline, desipramine, desvenlafaxine, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, iprindole, levomilnacipran, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, paroxetine, protriptyline, quinupramine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, tianeptine, trimipramine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide attempt, suicidal ideation, and non-serious adverse events. Discussion As antidepressants are commonly used to treat major depressive disorder in adults, a systematic review evaluating their beneficial and harmful effects is urgently needed. This review will inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent and burdensome disorder. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020220279

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of sprifermin injection for knee osteoarthritis treatment: a meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ni Zeng ◽  
Xin-Yuan Chen ◽  
Zhi-Peng Yan ◽  
Jie-Ting Li ◽  
Tao Liao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Placebo Treatment ◽  
Cartilage Volume ◽  
Cartilage Thickness ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Structural Progression ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Mean Differences

Abstract Objective To perform a meta-analysis comparing the structural progression and clinical symptom outcomes as well as adverse events experienced from intra-articular injections of sprifermin compared to a placebo treatment for patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Method We systematically searched the literature for studies that compared long-term outcomes between sprifermin and placebo injections for KOA treatment. Meta-analysis was performed with RevMan5.3 using an inverse variance approach with fixed or random effects models. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. Results Eight studies were included. Overall, there was significantly less improvement of WOMAC total scores in patients receiving sprifermin, compared with the placebo (mean difference (MD) = 3.23, 95% CI 0.76–5.69; I2 = 0%; P = 0.01). Further, sprifermin injection patients gained more, and lost less, cartilage thickness and volume in total femorotibial joint (cartilage thickness: standardized mean differences (SMD) = 0.55, 95% CI 0.26–0.84; I2 = 78%; P = 0.0002; cartilage volume: SMD = 0.39, 95% CI 0.20–0.58; I2 = 49%; P < 0.0001). Changes in the cartilage surface morphology of the medial tibio-femoral joint (MD = −0.30, 95% CI −0.44 to −0.16; I2 = 0%; P < 0.0001) and patello-femoral joint (MD = −0.22; 95% CI −0.37 to −0.07; I2 = 0%; P = 0.004) showed a significant difference between the sprifermin and placebo injections. Moreover, there were no significant differences between sprifermin and the placebo in the risk of treatment-emergent adverse events (OR = 1.05; 95% CI 0.52–2.14; I2 = 48%; P = 0.89). Conclusion The data from the included studies provide strong evidence to determine the effect of intra-articular sprifermin on joint structure in individuals with KOA and show no specific adverse effects. Nevertheless, intra-articular sprifermin did not likely have any positive effect on symptom alleviation.

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness of convalescent plasma in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 175346662110280
Author(s):  
Roberto Ariel Abeldaño Zuñiga ◽  
Ruth Ana María González-Villoria ◽  
María Vanesa Elizondo ◽  
Anel Yaneli Nicolás Osorio ◽  
David Gómez Martínez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trials

Aims: Given the variability of previously reported results, this systematic review aims to determine the clinical effectiveness of convalescent plasma employed in the treatment of hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of controlled clinical trials assessing treatment with convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The outcomes were mortality, clinical improvement, and ventilation requirement. Results: A total of 51 studies were retrieved from the databases. Five articles were finally included in the data extraction and qualitative and quantitative synthesis of results. The overall risk of bias in the reviewed articles was established at low-risk only in two trials. The meta-analysis suggests that there is no benefit of convalescent plasma compared with standard care or placebo in reducing the overall mortality and the ventilation requirement. However, there could be a benefit for the clinical improvement in patients treated with plasma. Conclusion: Current results led to assume that the convalescent plasma transfusion cannot reduce the mortality or ventilation requirement in hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. More controlled clinical trials conducted with methodologies that ensure a low risk of bias are still needed. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

scholarly journals Duration of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances in adolescents and adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen Abbing ◽  
Vasiliki Koretsi ◽  
Theodore Eliades ◽  
Spyridon N. Papageorgiou
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Duration ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Comprehensive Treatment ◽  
Orthodontic Appliances ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Fixed Appliances

Abstract Objectives Adults with fixed orthodontic appliances are increasing nowadays. Compared with adolescents, adults present biological differences that might influence treatment duration. Therefore, the aim of the study was to compare duration of treatment with fixed appliances between adults and adolescents. Materials and methods Eight databases were searched up to September 2019 for randomized and non-randomized clinical studies comparing treatment duration with fixed appliances in adolescents and adult patients. After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment with the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool, random effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed, followed by assessment of the quality of evidence with GRADE. Results A total of 11 unique studies (one prospective and 10 retrospective non-randomized) with 2969 adolescents and 1380 adult patients were finally included. Meta-analysis of 7 studies found no significant difference in the duration of comprehensive treatment with fixed appliances (MD = − 0.8 month; 95% CI = − 4.2 to 2.6 months; P = 0.65; I2 = 92%) between adults and adolescents. Similarly, both distalization of upper first molars with skeletal anchorage for class II correction and the retraction of canines into the premolar extraction spaces lasted similarly long among adults and adolescents. On the other hand, alignment of palatally displaced canines lasted considerably longer in adults compared to adolescents (1 study; MD = 3.8 months; 95% CI = 1.4 to 6.2 months; P = 0.002). The quality of evidence for the meta-analysis was low due to the inclusion of non-randomized studies with considerable risk of bias. Conclusions While existing evidence does not indicate a difference in the overall duration of treatment with fixed appliances between adults and adolescents, the alignment of palatally displaced canines lasted significantly longer in adults. However, our confidence in these estimates is low due to the risk of bias in the included studies. Trial registration PROSPERO: (CRD42019148169)

scholarly journals Racecadotril for acute diarrhoea in children: systematic review and meta-analyses

2015 ◽  
Vol 101 (3) ◽  
pp. 234-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morris Gordon ◽  
Anthony Akobeng
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Acute Diarrhoea ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Duration Of Symptoms ◽  
Duration Of Illness ◽  
Significant Difference

ObjectiveRacecadotril is an antisecretory agent that can prevent fluid/electrolyte depletion from the bowel as a result of acute diarrhoea without affecting intestinal motility. An up-to-date systematic review is indicated to summarise the evidence on racecadotril for the treatment of acute diarrhoea in children.DesignA Cochrane format systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality were performed independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.PatientsChildren with acute diarrhoea, as defined by the primary studies.InterventionsRCTs comparing racecadotril with placebo or other interventions.Main outcome measursDuration of illness, stool output/volume and adverse events.ResultsSeven RCTs were included, five comparing racecadotril with placebo or no intervention, one with pectin/kaolin and one with loperamide. Moderate to high risk of bias was present in all studies. There was no significant difference in efficacy or adverse events between racecadotril and loperamide. A meta-analysis of three studies with 642 participants showed significantly shorter duration of symptoms with racecadotril compared with placebo (mean difference −53.48 h, 95% CI −65.64 to −41.33). A meta-analysis of five studies with 949 participants showed no significant difference in adverse events between racecadotril and placebo (risk ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.34).ConclusionsThere is some evidence that racecadotril is more effective than placebo or no intervention in reducing the duration of illness and stool output in children with acute diarrhoea. However, the overall quality of the evidence is limited due to sparse data, heterogeneity and risk of bias. Racecadotril appears to be safe and well tolerated.

scholarly journals Handwash versus hand-rub practices for preventing nosocomial infection in hospital intensive care units: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 82-90
Author(s):  
S Bello ◽  
EA Bamgboye ◽  
DT Ajayi ◽  
EN Ossai ◽  
EC Aniwada ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Nosocomial Infection ◽  
Intensive Care Units ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Infection Rates

Background: Compliance with handwashing in busy healthcare facilities, such as intensive care units (ICUs), is suboptimal and alcohol hand-rub preparations have been suggested to improve compliance. There is no evidence on the comparative effectiveness between handwash and hand-rub strategies. This systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of handwash versus hand-rub strategies for preventing nosocomial infection in ICUs. Methods Studies conducted in ICUs and indexed in PubMed comparing the clinical effectiveness and adverse events between handwash and hand-rub groups were included in a systematic review. The primary outcome was nosocomial infection rates. Secondary outcomes included microbial counts on healthcare providers’ hands, mortality rates, patient/hospital cost of treatment of healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs), length of ICU/hospital stays, and adverse events. Studies were independently screened and data extracted by at least two authors. Meta-analyses of risk ratios (RR), incidence rate ratios (IRR), odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD), were conducted using the RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Seven studies published between 1992-2009 and involving a total of 11,663 patients were included. Five studies (10,981 patients) contributed data to the ICU acquired nosocomial infection rates. The pooled IRR was 0.71 (95% CI 0.61, 0.82; I2 = 94%). On sensitivity analysis, pooled IRR was 0.39 (95% CI 0.32, 0.48; 4 studies; 8,247 patients; I2 = 0%) in favour of hand rub. The pooled OR for mortality was 0.95 (95% CI 0.78, 1.61; 4 studies; 3,475 patients; I2 = 39%). The pooled MD for length of hospital stay was -0.74 (95% CI -2.83, 1.34; 3 studies; 741 patients; I2 = 0%). The pooled OR for an undesirable skin effect was 0.37 (95% CI 0.23, 0.60; 3 studies;1504 patients; I2 = 0%) in favour of hand rub. Overall quality of evidence was low. Conclusion: Hand rub appeared more effective when compared to handwash in ICUs.

scholarly journals Nervous and Muscular Adverse Events after COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 939
Author(s):  
Jiaxin Chen ◽  
Yuangui Cai ◽  
Yicong Chen ◽  
Anthony P. Williams ◽  
Yifang Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Open Label

Background: Nervous and muscular adverse events (NMAEs) have garnered considerable attention after the vaccination against coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, the incidences of NMAEs remain unclear. We aimed to calculate the pooled event rate of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials on the incidences of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination was conducted. The PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched from inception to 2 June 2021. Two independent reviewers selected the study and extracted the data. Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-square test. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and generated with random or fixed effects models. The protocol of the present study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021240450). Results: In 15 phase 1/2 trials, NMAEs occurred in 29.2% vs. 21.6% (p < 0.001) vaccinated participants and controls. Headache and myalgia accounted for 98.2% and 97.7%, and their incidences were 16.4% vs. 13.9% (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.002) and 16.0% vs. 7.9% (OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) in the vaccine and control groups, respectively. Headache and myalgia were more frequent in the newly licensed vaccines (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.02 and OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) and younger adults (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.12–1.75, p = 0.003 and OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.20–1.96, p < 0.001). In four open-label trials, the incidences of headache, myalgia, and unsolicited NMAEs were 38.7%, 27.4%, and 1.5%. Following vaccination in phase 3 trials, headache and myalgia were still common with a rate of 29.5% and 19.2%, although the unsolicited NMAEs with incidence rates of ≤ 0.7% were not different from the control group in each study. Conclusions: Following the vaccination, NMAEs are common of which headache and myalgia comprised a considerable measure, although life-threatening unsolicited events are rare. NMAEs should be continuously monitored during the ongoing global COVID-19 vaccination program.

scholarly journals A systematic review and meta-analysis for association of Helicobacter pylori colonization and celiac disease

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. e0241156
Author(s):  
Fazel Isapanah Amlashi ◽  
Zahra Norouzi ◽  
Ahmad Sohrabi ◽  
Hesamaddin Shirzad-Aski ◽  
Alireza Norouzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Helicobacter Pylori ◽  
Celiac Disease ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Protective Role ◽  
Negative Association ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Synthesis Methods

Background and objectives Based on some previous observational studies, there is a theory that suggests a potential relationship between Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) colonization and celiac disease (CeD); however, the type of this relationship is still controversial. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore all related primary studies to find any possible association between CeD and human H. pylori colonization. Data sources Studies were systematically searched and collected from four databases and different types of gray literature to cover all available evidence. After screening, the quality and risk of bias assessment of the selected articles were evaluated. Synthesis methods Meta-analysis calculated pooled odds ratio (OR) on the extracted data. Furthermore, heterogeneity, sensitivity, subgroups, and publication bias analyses were assessed. Results Twenty-six studies were included in this systematic review, with a total of 6001 cases and 135512 control people. The results of meta-analysis on 26 studies showed a significant and negative association between H. pylori colonization and CeD (pooled OR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.45–0.70; P < 0.001), with no publication bias (P = 0.825). The L’Abbé plots also showed a trend of having more H. pylori colonization in the control group. Among subgroups, ORs were notably different only when the data were stratified by continents or risk of bias; however, subgroup analysis could not determine the source of heterogeneity. Conclusions According to the meta-analysis, this negative association might imply a mild protective role of H. pylori against celiac disease. Although this negative association is not strong, it is statistically significant and should be further considered. Further investigations in both molecular and clinic fields with proper methodology and more detailed information are needed to discover more evidence and underlying mechanisms to clear the interactive aspects of H. pylori colonization in CeD patients. Systematic review registration number (PROSPERO) CRD42020167730 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=167730.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document