The Association between the Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors and the Risk of Hypomagnesemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although many case reports have described patients with proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-induced hypomagnesemia, the impact of PPI use on hypomagnesemia has not been fully clarified through comparative studies. We aimed to evaluate the association between the use of PPI and the risk of developing hypomagnesemia by conducting a systematic review with meta-analysis. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library using the primary keywords "proton pump," "dexlansoprazole," "esomeprazole," "ilaprazole," "lansoprazole," "omeprazole," "pantoprazole," "rabeprazole," "hypomagnesemia," "hypomagnesaemia," and "magnesium." Studies were included if they evaluated the association between PPI use and hypomagnesemia and reported relative risks or odds ratios or provided data for their estimation. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the random effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran's Q test and I2 statistics. RESULTS: Nine studies including 115,455 patients were analyzed. The median Newcastle-Ottawa quality score for the included studies was seven (range, 6-9). Among patients taking PPIs, the median proportion of patients with hypomagnesemia was 27.1% (range, 11.3-55.2%) across all included studies. Among patients not taking PPIs, the median proportion of patients with hypomagnesemia was 18.4% (range, 4.3-52.7%). On meta-analysis, pooled odds ratio for PPI use was found to be 1.775 (95% confidence interval 1.077-2.924). Significant heterogeneity was identified using Cochran's Q test (df = 7, P<0.001, I2 = 98.0%). CONCLUSIONS: PPI use may increase the risk of hypomagnesemia. However, significant heterogeneity among the included studies prevented us from reaching a definitive conclusion.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".