4.7 Review

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Metabolic Bone Disease in Patients with Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11133807

关键词

primary sclerosing cholangitis; cholestasis; osteopenia; osteoporosis

资金

  1. University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, Romania

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The association between primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) and metabolic bone disease is still unclear. This meta-analysis found no difference in bone mineral density (BMD-LS) between PSC patients and healthy controls, but lower BMD-LS in PSC patients compared to primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) patients. The lumbar spine T-score was higher in PSC patients compared with PBC patients. Further well-designed and larger-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Data about the association between primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) and metabolic bone disease are still unclear. PSC is a chronic cholestatic liver disease (CCLD) which affects the biliary tract, and it has a highly variable natural history. We systematically searched until 28 February 2022 MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the ISI Web of Science, and SCOPUS, for studies in patients with PSC. We identified 343 references to potential studies. After screening them, we included eight studies (893 PSC patients, 398 primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) patients, and 673 healthy controls) for the present meta-analysis. Pooled analyses found no difference in BMD-LS (Z = 0.02, p-value = 0.98) between PSC patients and healthy controls. BMD-LS was statistically lower in PBC patients than in PSC patients (Mean Difference, MD, 0.06, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.09, p-value = 0.0007). The lumbar spine T-score was higher in the PSC patients compared with PBC patients (MD 0.23, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.42, p-value = 0.02). Given the limited literature available, better designed, and larger scale primary studies will be required to confirm our conclusion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据