4.7 Article

Meta-analysis: coeliac disease and the risk of all-cause mortality, any malignancy and lymphoid malignancy

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 35, 期 5, 页码 540-551

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04972.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Coeliac disease has been associated with an increased risk of mortality and malignancy. However, the strength of this association is conflicting among different studies. Aim To perform a systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis to determine the risk of all-cause mortality, any malignancy and lymphoid malignancy in coeliac disease patients. Methods Four electronic databases (Medline, PubMed, Embase and Current Contents Connect) were searched to 4 January 2012, with no language restrictions. From 8698 citations identified, a total of 17 studies met our inclusion criteria. Results The all-cause mortality meta-analysis showed an increased risk for all-cause mortality in coeliac patients [odds ratio (OR) 1.24; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19-1.30]. A subgroup analysis showed that patients identified by positive serology alone were also at an increased risk of all-cause mortality (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.02-1.31). The non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) meta-analysis showed an increased risk for NHL in coeliac patients (OR 2.61; 95% CI 2.04-3.33). A subgroup analysis showed that patients identified by positive serology alone were also at an increased risk of NHL (OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.02-6.36). The T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (TNHL) meta-analysis showed an increased risk of TNHL (OR 15.84; 95% CI 7.85-31.94). The any malignancy meta-analysis showed no increased risk (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.89-1.29). Conclusions Patients with coeliac disease are at an increased risk of mortality and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, particularly T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma; they do not have an increased risk of any malignancy overall. Serologically defined patients with coeliac disease have an elevated risk of mortality and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

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