| Literature DB >> 29938864 |
Bálint Erőss1, Nelli Farkas2, Áron Vincze3, Benedek Tinusz1, László Szapáry1, András Garami1, Márta Balaskó1, Patrícia Sarlós3, László Czopf4, Hussain Alizadeh5, Zoltán Rakonczay6, Tamás Habon4, Péter Hegyi1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection (HPI) has been decreasing in developed countries, with an increasing prevalence of Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) at the same time. The aim of our meta-analysis was to quantify the risk of BE in the context of HPI.Entities:
Keywords: zzm321990Helicobacter pylorizzm321990; Barrett's esophagus; esophageal adenocarcinoma; gastroesophageal reflux disease; meta-analysis; systematic review
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29938864 PMCID: PMC6055671 DOI: 10.1111/hel.12504
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Helicobacter ISSN: 1083-4389 Impact factor: 5.753
Figure 1Flow chart of the study selection process
Main characteristics of the studies included
| Study author and year | Country | Number of cases/controls |
| Definition of controls | Only new BE cases |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abbas (1995) | Pakistan | 29/29 | H, R | GERD | No |
| Abe (2009) | Japan | 36/108 | H, R, S | Population | Yes |
| Abouda (2003) | UK | 60/25 | H, R, S | Endoscopy | No |
| Ackermack (2003) | Netherlands | 51/62 | S | Endoscopy | Not stated |
| Ahmed (2004) | Sudan | 11/47 | R | GERD | Not stated |
| Anderson (2008) | Ireland | 224/260 | S | Population | Yes |
| Blaser (1991) | USA | 58/41 | H,S | Population | Not stated |
| Carmona (2003) | Mexico | 24/232 | R | Endoscopy | Not stated |
| Chacaltana (2009) | Peru | 11/911 | H | Other | No |
| Chang (2010) | China | 32/41 | H | Endoscopy | No |
| Chen (2016) | Taiwan | 161/644 | R | Endoscopy | Not stated |
| Cooper (1991) | UK | 26/30 | H | GERD | No |
| Corley (2008) | USA | 318/299 | S | Population | Yes |
| Csendes (1997) | Chile | 100/190 | H | Endoscopy | No |
| Dore (2016) | Italy | 131/1772 | H, R, U | Endoscopy | No |
| El Serag (1999) | USA | 36/72 | H | GERD | No |
| Fassan (2009) | Italy | 210/210 | H | Endoscopy | Not stated |
| Ferrandez (2006) | Spain | 104/213 | H, R, S, PCR | Population | No |
| Goldblum (2002) | USA | 70/60 | H, S | Endoscopy | No |
| Hackelsberger (1998) | Germany | 16/315 | H, R | Endoscopy | No |
| Henihan (1998) | Ireland | 82/40 | H esophagus | GERD | No |
| Hilal (2016) | USA | 323/1849 | H | Endoscopy | No |
| Hirota (1999) | USA | 104/738 | H esophagus | Endoscopy | No |
| Inomata (2006) | Japan | 36/80 | H, R, S | Endoscopy | Not stated |
| Johansson (2007) | Sweden | 21/498 | H esophagus | Endoscopy | No |
| Jonaitis (2011) | Lithuania | 33/160 | H, R | GERD | Not stated |
| Kala (2007) | Czech Rep. | 22/173 | H, R | GERD | No |
| Katsienlos (2013) | Greece | 75/1915 | H, R | Endoscopy | Not stated |
| Keyashian (2013) | USA | 52/391 | H, SA | Endoscopy | No |
| Kiltz (1999) | Germany | 35/320 | R, S | Endoscopy | No |
| Kim (2006) | S. Korea | 31/224 | H, R | Endoscopy | Not stated |
| Laheij (2002) | Netherlands | 23/528 | H, R, C | Endoscopy | Not stated |
| Lam (2008) | USA | 56/280 | S | Endoscopy | Yes |
| Lee (2011) | Malaysia | 15/104 | H, R | Endoscopy | Not stated |
| Loffeld (1992) | Netherlands | 71/200 | H esophagus, S | Population | Not stated |
| Loffeld (2000) | Netherlands | 36/454 | H | Endoscopy | Yes |
| Loffeld (2004) | Netherlands | 307/5341 | H, C | Endoscopy | No |
| Lord (2000) | Australia | 91/214 | H | Endoscopy | No |
| Martinek (2003) | Czech Rep. | 31/259 | H, R | Endoscopy | Not stated |
| Meng (2008) | USA | 28/104 | PCR | Endoscopy | Not stated |
| Monkemuller (2008) | Germany | 97/97 | H | Endoscopy | No |
| Nandurkar (1997) | Australia | 46/112 | H esophagus | Endoscopy | Yes |
| Newton (1997) | UK | 16/25 | H, R | Endoscopy | No |
| Pascareno (2014) | Romania | 24/218 | H | Endoscopy | Not stated |
| Paull (1988) | USA | 26/26 | H | Endoscopy | No |
| Peng (2009) | China | 27/110 | R | GERD | Not stated |
| Rajendra (2004) | Malaysia | 123/1741 | H, R | Endoscopy | Not stated |
| Rajendra (2007) | Malaysia | 55/53 | H, S | Endoscopy | No |
| Rex (2003) | USA | 48/764 | R | Population | Yes |
| Rodriguez (2014) | Spain | 8/192 | H | Endoscopy | Yes |
| Ronkainen (2005) | Sweden | 16/984 | H, C, S | Population | Not stated |
| Rubenstein (2014) | USA | 150/177 | S | Endoscopy | No |
| Rugge (2001) | Italy | 53/53 | H | Endoscopy | Not stated |
| Sharifi (2014) | Iran | 34/702 | H, R | GERD | Not stated |
| Schenk (1999) | Netherlands | 49/88 | H | GERD | No |
| Sonnenberg (2010) | USA | 2510/76 475 | H | Endoscopy | No |
| Sonnenberg (2016) | USA | 76 475/284 552 | H | Endoscopy | No |
| Thrift (2012) | Australia | 0/398 | S | Population | Yes |
| Toruner (2004) | Turkey | 29/306 | H | Endoscopy | Yes |
| Uno (2011) | Japan | 126/100 | H, S, R | Endoscopy | No |
| Vaezi (2000) | USA | 83/60 | H, S | GERD | Not stated |
| Veldhuyzen (2006) | Canada | 25/1015 | H | Endoscopy | Yes |
| Vicari (1998) | USA | 48/57 | H,S | GERD | No |
| Vieth (2000) | Germany | 1054/712 | H | Endoscopy | No |
| Watari (2009) | Japan | 88/52 | H, C | Other | No |
| Werdmuller (1997) | Netherlands | 13/399 | H, C, R, S | Endoscopy | Not stated |
| Weston (2000) | USA | 208/217 | H | GERD | No |
| White (2008) | Canada | 39/29 | H esophagus | Endoscopy | No |
| Wong (2002) | China | 10/448 | H, R, U | Endoscopy | Yes |
| Wu (2000) | Hong Kong | 6/85 | H, R | GERD | Not stated |
| Zaninotto (2002) | Italy | 34/32 | H esophagus | GERD | No |
| Zullo (2014) | Italy | 17/1037 | H | Endoscopy | Not stated |
C, culture; GERD, gastro‐esophageal reflux disease; H, histology; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; R, rapid urease test; S, serology; SA, stool antigen; U, urea breath test.
Studies only in the subgroup analysis for BE segment length.
These studies are indicated as H esophagus in column 4 (H. pylori testing method).
Figure 2Forest plot of the random effect analysis of the 70 studies included in the overall analysis, in subgroups for continents. OR, odds ratio; CI, 95% confidence interval; HP, Helicobacter pylori, weights of studies and heterogeneities are indicated too
Figure 3Forest plot of the random effect analysis of the 7 studies included in the subgroup analysis for different segment lengths of Barrett's esophagus. LS, long segment; SS, short segment; USS, ultrashort‐segment Barrett's esophagus; OR, odds ratio, CI, 95% confidence interval; HP, Helicobacter pylori, weights of studies and heterogeneities are indicated too
Figure 4Forest plot of the random effect analysis of the 6 studies included in the subgroup analysis for the presence of dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus. OR, odds ratio; CI, 95% confidence interval; HP, Helicobacter pylori, weights of studies and heterogeneities are highlighted too
Results of the modified Newcastle‐Ottawa quality assessment scale for case control studies