ReviewEXCLI journal2021
The association between metabolic syndrome and erosive esophagitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in EXCLI journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The association between screen time exposure and myopia in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- Risk factors and 26-years worldwide prevalence of endoscopic erosive esophagitis from 1997 to 2022: a meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- Metabolic correlates of endoscopy-confirmed reflux esophagitis in hospital-based patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Impact of Metabolic Health and Its Changes on Erosive Esophagitis Remission: A Cohort Study.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2025Article
- Relationship of different metabolic obesity phenotypes with reflux esophagitis: a propensity score matching analysis.BMC endocrine disorders · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although several studies have shown that each of the metabolic syndrome (MetS) components can be a risk factor for erosive esophagitis (EE), the association between MetS and EE is still a challenging subject, as studies about this association have shown inconsistent results. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the association between MetS and EE. In this study, we followed the MOOSE protocol and the PRISMA guidelines for reporting the results. Web of Science (ISI), Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews - CDSR), EMBASE, Scopus, Science Direct, PubMed/Medline, EBSCO, CINAHL, and Google Scholar search engine were searched for articles published until January 2021. Heterogeneity between studies was estimated by I2 index and Q test. All analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software. Finally, 12 studies entered the meta-analysis process after qualitative assessment. MetS was significantly associated with increased risk of EE (OR=1.488 [95 % CI: 1.352-1.638], P<0.001; Heterogeneity: I2= 55.57, P<0.001) in 12 studies with a sample size of 45285 (12825 cases and 29377 controls). In subgroup analysis based on types of studies (P=0.832), MetS diagnostic criteria (P=0.083) and quality of studies (P=0.612), no significant association was found. Sensitivity analysis showed that the overall estimation of effect size is still robust after omission of individual studies from the meta-analysis. Publication bias based on the Begg's test (P=0.945) and Egger's test (P=0.753) were not significant. MetS increases the risk of EE compared to control groups. Future studies should examine if MetS treatment reduces the risk of EE.
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.