MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313339765 · doi:10.1111/apt.17360

Meta‐analysis: Use of proton pump inhibitors and risk of gastric cancer in patients requiring gastric acid suppression

2022· review· en· W4313339765 on OpenAlexaff
Daniele Piovani, Andreas G. Tsantes, Holger J. Schünemann, Stefanos Bonovas

Bibliographic record

VenueAlimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpactCochrane
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfoundingMeta-analysisRelative riskProton-pump inhibitorCancerInternal medicinePublication biasRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalMEDLINERandom effects modelGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Background Proton‐pump inhibitors (PPIs) are suspected to increase the risk of gastric cancer. Aim To assess the risk of gastric cancer associated with the use of PPIs. Methods We systematically searched Medline/PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases (until June 1, 2022) for randomised and non‐randomised studies (NRS) of the association between PPIs and gastric cancer having considered Histamine‐2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) users as controls. We chose this comparison to minimise confounding by indication, and focus on patients requiring gastric acid suppression. Two authors independently extracted study data and assessed each study's risk of bias. Maximally‐adjusted relative risk (RR) estimates were extracted. Heterogeneity and small‐study effect were examined, and summary estimates were calculated using random‐ and fixed‐effect models. Stratified analyses and meta‐regression were employed to explore heterogeneity. We used GRADE to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Results Of 8375 records, 12 NRS (>6 million patients; 11,554 gastric cancers) and two randomised clinical trials (498 patients; 1 gastric cancer) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Randomised evidence was very imprecise and provided very‐low certainty evidence. Meta‐analysis of six NRS providing a comprehensive adjustment for confounding (2.5 million patients; 7372 gastric cancers) did not show any association between PPIs and gastric cancer (RRrandom = 1.07, 0.97–1.19; RRfixed = 1.05, 0.98–1.12). The certainty of the evidence was low. No convincing evidence of dose–response, or increased risk with long‐term use, was found. Lack of or minimal adjustment for confounding was associated with larger effect sizes. Conclusions We found no association between PPIs and gastric cancer in NRS having adequately controlled for confounding. Published studies may suffer residual confounding. Systematic review registration: CRD42022335971.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
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: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.073
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations26
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlimentary Pharmacology & TherapeuticsSame topicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studiesFrench-language works237,207