Increased risk of peptic ulcer following periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Considering the importance of periodontal diseases in the occurrence of systemic diseases such as peptic ulcer diseases, the relationship between peptic ulcer diseases and periodontal diseases is important, therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis is to investigate the relationship between peptic ulcer and periodontitis. METHODS: In this systematic review, to find the relevant articles, PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases were reviewed according to the search strategy. All studies were screened and eligible studies were selected to include in the meta-analysis. The quality of the selected articles was evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa assessment scale. I-square statistic was used to investigate the heterogeneity between studies and its significance was checked with Chi-square test. In cases where there was serious heterogeneity, random-effects model was used for data synthesis, otherwise fixed-effects model was used. RESULTS: Five studies from different countries were included, among which there were two cross-sectional, two case-control, and one cohort study. Based on the primary studies that reported the adjusted results to control for confounders, a significant relationship between periodontitis and peptic ulcer was observed (effect size (ES) = 1.47, 95% CI 1.01-1.93, I-square = 93.1%), and similar significant results were also obtained regarding the relationship between periodontitis and duodenal ulcer (ES = 1.10, 95% CI 1.02-1.17, I-square = 33.0%), but there is no significant relationship between periodontitis and gastric ulcer (ES: 1.33, 95% CI 0.71-1.96, I-square = 74.0%). CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed that periodontitis is associated with increased risk of peptic ulcer and duodenal ulcer, but no significant relationship was observed with gastric ulcer. Therefore, the implementation of periodontitis treatment protocol can increase the success of peptic ulcer and duodenal ulcer treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.050 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".