MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2068487156 · doi:10.1097/01.mpg.0000239994.20270.a8

Therapy with Gastric Acidity Inhibitors Increases the Risk of Acute Gastroenteritis and Community‐acquired Pneumonia in Children.

2006· article· en· W2068487156 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Joel R. Rosh, Eric Hassall

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueViral gastroenteritis research and epidemiology
Établissements canadiensBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePneumoniaInternal medicinePediatricsDiarrheaGERDOmeprazoleGastroenterologyProspective cohort studyDiseaseReflux

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Therapy with Gastric Acidity Inhibitors Increases the Risk of Acute Gastroenteritis and Community-acquired Pneumonia in Children. Canani RB, Cirillo P, Roggero P, et al. Pediatrics 2006;117:e817-20. Summary: The authors performed a prospective, controlled trial involving 91 children, ages 4 to 36 months, who were diagnosed with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) by endoscopic biopsy and pH probe. They received either high-dose ranitidine (dosage, 10 mg/kg/day) or omeprazole (dosage, 1 mg/kg/day) during a 4-month study period. The authors compiled the rates of gastroenteritis and pneumonia in these acid-suppressed patients and in a cohort of 95 healthy children matched for age, sex, growth, and number of infections in the 4 months before the treatment period. Excluded were children with conditions predisposing to recurrent infection, including diabetes, chronic lung or cardiac disease, and congenital gastrointestinal motility disorders. Data were also compiled for the 4 months before the introduction of acid-suppressive therapy. Gastroenteritis was defined as the presence of diarrhea of 2 to 7 days' duration, with or without other symptoms such as fever. Pneumonia was defined as clinical symptoms confirmed with a chest radiograph. The diagnosis of these infections was prompted by self-referral-parents were instructed to contact their primary physician or the study center if symptoms developed. The study period coincided with the time of year during which Italy experiences the highest rates of rotavirus and respiratory syncytial virus infections. The control group had 19 cases of gastroenteritis compared with 43 in the treated group (P = 0.001; OR = 3.58), and 2 control pneumonias compared with 11 in the treated group (P = 0.03; OR = 6.39). The baseline infection rates in the treatment and control cohorts during the 4 months before the start of the study were the same. The increased infection rate in the treated group lasted beyond the 4 months of the study. Comment: There are some methodological vulnerabilities in this study. Most important, the primary outcomes were self-reported and the trial was open label. In this setting, knowing that their children were receiving a newly prescribed medication, the parents may have been more vigilant and more likely to report new symptoms compared with the parents of healthy, untreated children. In addition, the children in the treated group were diagnosed with GERD after their parents sought medical care for symptoms suggestive of GERD. Again, such parents may have had a lower threshold for seeking medical attention than those of healthy controls. These selection biases could have confounded the results. The working definition of gastroenteritis in this study was quite liberal and could have captured cases of changes in stool pattern due to dietary changes or even introduction of the study medication itself. In addition, the groups were not controlled for daycare attendance as a risk factor for acquisition of infections-this is important, given the age of the study population. Aside from these factors, Dr Canani and his colleagues deserve high commendation for performing a prospective, controlled study of this important topic in children. The odds ratios of risk are impressive, even when given the potential for inflation by the biases already mentioned. On the other hand, the dose of proton pump inhibitor administered was relatively low, and this may have reduced the magnitude of the findings. This study adds to a growing literature on risks of infection in acid-suppressed individuals. For example, acid suppression has been linked to an increase in community-acquired pneumonias in adults 1, an increased pneumonia incidence in mechanically ventilated patients 2,3, an increased risk of Clostridium difficile infection 4, and an increase in necrotizing enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants 5. Although much more data are required, these emerging data should serve as reminder to all of us that although the use of acid suppressives has benefited patients enormously, the use of any treatment is a risk-benefit equation. Recent trends toward the widespread empirical use of acid suppressives are of concern, especially in young children 6. It is also important for the prescribing physician to remember that even when acid suppression is indicated, it is not necessary to make patients achlorhydric to achieve symptom response or healing. Joel R. Rosh, MD Associate Professor of Pediatrics, UMD-NJ Medical School Director, Pediatric Gastroenterology Atlantic Health, Morristown, NJ [email protected] Eric Hassall, MBChB, FRCPC Professor of Pediatrics Division of Gastroenterology BC Childrens Hospital/University of British Columbia Vancouver BC, Canada

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,011

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,003
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,243
Écart entre enseignants0,235 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations13
Publié2006
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and NutritionMême sujetViral gastroenteritis research and epidemiologyTravaux en français237 207