4.5 Review

Tobacco smoking and intestinal metaplasia: Systematic review and meta-analysis identified

期刊

DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
卷 46, 期 11, 页码 1031-1037

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2014.08.034

关键词

Meta-analysis; Precancerous conditions; Smoking; Stomach neoplasms

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia [PTDC/SAUEPI/122460/2010, SFRH/BPD/75918/2011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The evaluation of specific risk factors for early endpoints in the gastric carcinogenesis pathway may further contribute to the understanding of gastric cancer aetiology. Aims: To quantify the relation between smoking and intestinal metaplasia through systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Articles providing data on the association between smoking and intestinal metaplasia were identified in PubMed (R), Scopus (R) and Web of Science (TM), searched until April 2014, and through backward citation tracking. Summary odds ratio estimates and 95% confidence intervals were computed using the DerSimonian and Laird method. Heterogeneity was quantitatively assessed using the I-2 statistic. Results: A total of 32 articles were included in this systematic review and 19 provided data for meta- analysis. Smoking was defined as ever vs. never (crude estimates, six studies, summary odds ratio = 1.54,95% confidence interval: 1.12-2.12, I-2 = 67.4%; adjusted estimates, seven studies, summary odds ratio = 1.26,95% confidence interval: 0.98-1.61, I-2 = 65.0%) and current vs. non-smokers (crude estimates, seven studies, summary odds ratio = 1.27, 95% confidence interval: 0.88-1.84, I-2 = 73.4%; adjusted estimates, two studies, summary odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval: 0.99-2.25, I-2 = 0.0%). Conclusion: The weak and non-statistically significant association found through meta-analysis of the available evidence does not confirm smoking as an independent risk factor for intestinal metaplasia. (C) 2014 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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