MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Systematic Review of the Risk of Enteric Infection in Patients Taking Acid Suppression

2007· review· en· W2114271048 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Leonard, John K. Marshall, Paul Moayyedi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineOdds ratioGastroenterologyCohort studyPopulationMeta-analysisClostridium difficileMEDLINEAntibioticsMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and H(2) receptor antagonists (H(2)RAs) have become the mainstay of therapy in acid-related upper gastrointestinal disorders. There have been concerns raised about the possible association of PPIs with enteric infections. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate any association between acid suppression and enteric infection. We also assessed differences between types of enteric infections and the type of acid suppression. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches of MEDLINE (1966-2005), EMBASE (1988-2005), and CINAHL (1982-2005) were undertaken using a combination of subject headings and text words related to PPI therapy, H(2)RAs, and enteric infections. STUDY SELECTION: All observational studies were eligible, including cross-sectional, case control, and cohort studies that evaluated risk of enteric infection associated with antisecretory therapy. Eligibility assessment was made by two independent researchers. DATA EXTRACTION: Information on study design, patient population, type of acid suppression, type of infection, and outcomes was collected. The odds ratio (OR) of taking acid suppression therapy in cases and controls was calculated and results were synthesized using a random effects model (DerSimonian and Laird, Stats direct version 2.4.4). DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 12 papers evaluating 2,948 patients with Clostridium difficile were included in the review. There was an increased risk of taking antisecretory therapy in those infected with C. difficile (pooled OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.37-2.75). There was significant heterogeneity between the studies (P= 0.0006) that was not explained by planned subgroup analysis. The association was greater for PPI use (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.28-3.00) compared with H(2)RA use (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.85-2.29). A total of six studies evaluated Salmonella, Campylobacter, and other enteric infections in 11,280 patients. There was an increased risk of taking acid suppression in those with enteric infections (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.53-4.26). There was significant heterogeneity between the studies (P < 0.0001) that was not explained by subgroup analysis. The association was greater for PPI use (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.84-6.02) compared with H(2)RA use (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.05-3.92). CONCLUSION: There is an association between acid suppression and an increased risk of enteric infection. Further prospective studies on patients taking long-term acid suppression are needed to establish whether this association is causal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.008
Bibliometrics0.0110.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations640
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207