MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002240959 · doi:10.1038/ajg.2009.734

Is There an Increased Risk of GERD After Helicobacter pylori Eradication?: A Meta-Analysis

2010· review· en· W2002240959 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreMcMaster University Medical CentreUniversity of TorontoHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGERDMedicineInternal medicineMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialJadad scaleCohortSubgroup analysisCohort studyHelicobacter pyloriOdds ratioGastroenterologyRefluxDiseaseCochrane Library

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Some studies suggest that eradication of Helicobacter pylori (Hp) might increase the risk of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in a portion of patients. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to investigate this. METHODS: A comprehensive, English, multiple-source literature search was performed from 1983 to February 2007. Only randomized controlled trial (RCT) and cohort studies comparing the prevalence of GERD in patients free from GERD at baseline with Hp eradication vs. those with persistent Hp were included. Quality of RCTs and cohorts was assessed by Jadad and New Castle-Ottawa scores, respectively. Meta-analysis of pooled odds ratios (ORs) was performed using Review Manager 4.2.10. RESULTS: Twelve (7 RCTs and 5 cohorts) of 271 articles were included. In six RCTs using erosive GERD as outcome, the OR for the frequency of GERD in Hp eradicated group vs. persistent Hp group was 1.11 (0.81-1.53, P=0.52). In five RCTs using symptomatic outcome, the OR for the frequency of GERD in Hp eradicated group vs. persistent Hp was 1.22 (0.89-1.69, P=0.22). In cohort studies, the OR for the frequency of GERD in Hp eradicated group vs. persistent Hp was 1.37 (0.89-2.12; P=0.15). Test of heterogeneity was not significant for any analyses. The results were consistent in subgroup and sensitivity analyses, including cohort studies vs. RCTs, high-quality studies vs. low-quality studies, and use of endoscopic vs. symptomatic outcomes except for the subgroup of patients with peptic ulcer disease (PUD) in cohort studies (OR: 2.04 (1.08-3.85); P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: There is no association between Hp eradication and development of new cases of GERD in the population of dyspeptic patients. However, in cohort studies, there seems to be a twofold higher risk of development of erosive GERD in patients with PUD. The effect in RCTs of patients with PUD did not show a significant difference.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it