SynthesisMedicine2016
Metabolic syndrome is associated with increased risk of Barrett esophagus: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The relationship between metabolic syndrome and increased risk of Barrett's esophagus: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2020Pooled it
- The association between metabolic syndrome and erosive esophagitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.EXCLI journal · 2021Review
- The Prognostic Significance of Metabolic Syndrome and a Related Six-lncRNA Signature in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Risk factors for Barrett's esophagus in young adults who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in a health examination center.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2019Article
- Underrated enemy - from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease to cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.Clinical and experimental hepatology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBarrett esophagus (BE) is considered precursor condition of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Its incidence and prevalence are increasing in general population. Studies reported that metabolic syndrome (MS) or diabetes mellitus (DM) is related to increased risk of BE. Current study was to assess and better understand the relationship between MS /DM and BE.
methodsElectronic search was conducted in the database Pubmed/Medline (-December, 2015), Embase (-December, 2015), Cochrane Library (-December, 2015), and Web of Knowledge (-December, 2015). Studies included were assessed with summary odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and compared exposure group with control group. The heterogeneity was examined by the funnel plot and the Egger's test. Subgroup analyses and sensitive analyses were performed for the detection of possible heterogeneity and impact on stability of analysis results.
resultsTwelve publications met the criteria and included 355,311 subjects were analyzed. The pooled results showed MS was closely associated with increased risk of BE (OR = 1.23; 95%CI 1.03-1.47; P = 0.024), and yet DM did not significantly increase the risk of BE (OR = 1.07; 95%CI 0.82-1.38; P = 0.627). Substantial heterogeneities were detected. No significant publication bias was detected by Egger's test (P = 0.23).
conclusionsBased on the results of current meta-analysis, MS is associated with increased risk of BE. Further long-term follow-up prospective study needs to verify the current results, and definite pathophysiological mechanism needs to be further investigated and clearly elucidated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.