ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2025
Cholecystectomy and the risk of microscopic colitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Several observational studies suggest a potential association between cholecystectomy and the risk of developing microscopic colitis (MC). However, the current findings remain inconsistent. Objectives: To address this discrepancy, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively assess the association between cholecystectomy and the risk of MC. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources and methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted to identify studies evaluating the association between cholecystectomy and MC risk. Studies were eligible if they reported effect estimates or provided sufficient data for calculation. Two independent authors extracted the data and assessed the quality of included studies. A random-effects model was used to pool odds ratios (ORs), with subgroup analyses performed according to patient characteristics and study quality. Results: Six observational studies were included in the final analysis. The pooled OR was 0.80 (95% confidence interval: 0.52-1.22), and sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results, indicating no significant association between cholecystectomy and MC risk. Subgroup analyses based on geographic location, study design, study quality, methods of cholecystectomy data collection, control populations, and MC subtypes consistently showed no significant association. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests no statistically significant association between cholecystectomy and the risk of MC. Future research should include populations with diverse geographic and ethnic backgrounds, utilize medical records for accurate surgical history, and account for potential confounding factors. Large-scale prospective studies will be essential to obtain more reliable and definitive conclusions. Trial PROSPERO registration: CRD42024592056.
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.