MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3168396703 · doi:10.1111/apt.16407

Umbrella review of 42 systematic reviews with meta‐analyses: the safety of proton pump inhibitors

2021· review· en· W3168396703 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth M. Salvo‐Halloran, Nicole Ferko, Sarah B. Cash, Ailish Gonzalez, Peter J. Kahrilas

Bibliographic record

VenueAlimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsEVERSANA (Canada)
FundersEthicon
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisSystematic reviewMEDLINEIntensive care medicineInternal medicineBiochemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used to treat and prevent acid-related disorders. Despite high efficacy, PPI safety has been increasingly scrutinised. However, no comprehensive review summarising investigations of various adverse events is available. AIMS: To perform an umbrella review to comprehensively assess associations between adverse events and PPI use. METHODS: In accordance with PRISMA, an umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses was conducted. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from 2015 to July 2019. AMSTAR 2 and GRADE were used to assess quality and certainty of evidence. Author-reported quality assessments were also reviewed. RESULTS: Forty-two systematic reviews with meta-analyses, supported predominantly by observational evidence, were included. The most comprehensive studies reported statistically significant associations with PPI use for several outcomes, including: fractures (eg, hip; RR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.14-1.28; n = 2 103 800), kidney disease (eg, acute kidney injury; RR = 1.61; 95% CI = 1.16-2.22; n = 2 396 640), infections (eg, Clostridioides difficile; OR = 1.99; 95% CI = 1.73-2.30; n = 356 683), gastric cancer (OR = 2.50; 95% CI = 1.74-3.85; n = 943 070) and gastrointestinal events (eg, fundic gland polyps; OR = 2.46; 95% CI = 1.42-4.27; n = 40 218). No associations with non-gastric cancers, or neurological disease were concluded, with conflicting evidence for cardiovascular outcomes. Certainty based on GRADE was very low for most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified several published associations between PPIs and adverse outcomes, however, further investigation is needed to understand their clinical significance and the likelihood of causal relationship. If higher quality evidence is generated substantiating the potential risks, it may be necessary for clinicians to consider alternative treatment strategies, especially when PPI efficacy is suboptimal.

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.141
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.141
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.034
Bibliometrics0.0280.021
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.279
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations75
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlimentary Pharmacology & TherapeuticsSame topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207