Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23922844›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Background factors of reflux esophagitis and non-erosive reflux disease: a cross-sectional study of 10,837 subjects in Japan.

Chihiro Minatsuki, Nobutake Yamamichi, Takeshi Shimamoto, Hikaru Kakimoto, Yu Takahashi, Mitsuhiro Fujishiro, Yoshiki Sakaguchi, Chiemi Nakayama, Maki Konno-Shimizu, Rie Matsuda and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Chihiro MinatsukiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Nobutake Yamamichi
Takeshi Shimamoto
Hikaru Kakimoto
Yu Takahashi
Mitsuhiro Fujishiro
Yoshiki Sakaguchi
Chiemi Nakayama
Maki Konno-Shimizu
Rie Matsuda
Satoshi Mochizuki
Itsuko Asada-Hirayama
Yosuke Tsuji
Shinya Kodashima
Satoshi Ono
Keiko Niimi
Toru Mitsushima
Kazuhiko Koike
The University of Tokyo · JPUniversity of Tokyo Hospital · JPKameda Medical Center · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the high prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), its risk factors are still a subject of controversy. This is probably due to inadequate distinction between reflux esophagitis (RE) and non-erosive reflux disease (NERD), and is also due to inadequate evaluation of adjacent stomach. Our aim is therefore to define background factors of RE and NERD independently, based on the evaluation of Helicobacter pylori infection and gastric atrophy.

methodsWe analyzed 10,837 healthy Japanese subjects (6,332 men and 4,505 women, aged 20-87 years) who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. RE was diagnosed as the presence of mucosal break, and NERD was diagnosed as the presence of heartburn and/or acid regurgitation in RE-free subjects. Using GERD-free subjects as control, background factors for RE and NERD were separately analyzed using logistic regression to evaluate standardized coefficients (SC), odds ratio (OR), and p-value.

resultsOf the 10,837 study subjects, we diagnosed 733 (6.8%) as RE and 1,722 (15.9%) as NERD. For RE, male gender (SC = 0.557, OR = 1.75), HP non-infection (SC = 0.552, OR = 1.74), higher pepsinogen I/II ratio (SC = 0.496, OR = 1.64), higher BMI (SC = 0.464, OR = 1.60), alcohol drinking (SC = 0.161, OR = 1.17), older age (SC = 0.148, OR = 1.16), and smoking (SC = 0.129, OR = 1.14) are positively correlated factors. For NERD, HP infection (SC = 0.106, OR = 1.11), female gender (SC = 0.099, OR = 1.10), younger age (SC = 0.099, OR = 1.10), higher pepsinogen I/II ratio (SC = 0.099, OR = 1.10), smoking (SC = 0.080, OR = 1.08), higher BMI (SC = 0.078, OR = 1.08), and alcohol drinking (SC = 0.076, OR = 1.08) are positively correlated factors. Prevalence of RE in subjects with chronic HP infection and successful HP eradication denotes significant difference (2.3% and 8.8%; p<0.0001), whereas that of NERD shows no difference (18.2% and 20.8%; p = 0.064).

conclusionsSignificantly associated factors of NERD are considerably different from those of RE, indicating that these two disorders are pathophysiologically distinct. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori may have disadvantageous effects on RE but not on NERD.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesEsophagitis, PepticFemaleGastroesophageal RefluxHelicobacter InfectionsHelicobacter pyloriHumansJapanMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID23922844
PMCPMC3724738
OpenAlexW2074086177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.