4.6 Article

Association between history of cholecystectomy and risk of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 13, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057138

关键词

gastrointestinal tumours; epidemiology; gastroenterology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The meta-analysis suggests that a history of cholecystectomy may be associated with an increased risk of gastric cancer.
Purpose Evidence from previous studies on the association between cholecystectomy and risk of gastric cancer are still inconsistent. We aimed at conducting a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies to evaluate this association.Methods Researchers searched three databases (PubMed, Embase and Web of Science) through January 2021 for eligible studies. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs in each included studies were pooled by random-effects models. Patients and the public were not involved in our study.Results Eight studies were identified. Four studies reported significantly positive association between history of cholecystectomy and risk of gastric cancer, and the remaining studies reported null association. The pooled RR of these eight studies showed that a history of cholecystectomy was associated with a 11% higher risk of gastric cancer (pooled RR=1.11, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.20). Moderate heterogeneity across the studies was detected (p=0.117, I-2=37.8%). The pooled RRs were 1.12 (95% CI: 1.01 to 1.24) for five cohort studies and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.66 to 1.38) for three case-control studies. Compared with the risk in Europe and the USA, the pooled RR was higher for two studies conducted in Asia. Six studies were assessed as high-quality studies with the pooled RR of 1.12 (95% CI: 1.02 to 1.23). The pooled results were robust by sensitivity analyses, and no indication of publication bias was detected.Conclusion This meta-analysis suggests that a history of cholecystectomy may be associated with an increased risk of gastric cancer.

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

4.6
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