Copyright
©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol. Aug 15, 2014; 5(3): 178-187
Published online Aug 15, 2014. doi: 10.4291/wjgp.v5.i3.178
Published online Aug 15, 2014. doi: 10.4291/wjgp.v5.i3.178
Table 2 Meta-analyses comparing patients with Barrett’s oesophagus to control groups
Subject | Ref. | Comparison | Group | Studies | Results | Outcome |
Gender | Cook et al[6], 2005 | Gender | Barrett’s | 32 | M:F Ratio 1.96:1 (95%CI: 1.77, 2.77) | Higher M:F ratio in Barrett’s oesophagus and reflux oesophagitis than in non-erosive reflux disease |
Erosive reflux disease | 28 | 1.57 (95%CI: 1.40, 1.76) | ||||
Non-erosive reflux disease | 14 | 0.72 (95%CI: 0.62, 0.84) | ||||
Smoking | Andrici et al[7], 2013 | Ever smoking | Barrett’s vs GORD | 20 | OR, 1.18 (95%CI: 0.75, 1.86) | Cigarette smoking associated with increased risk of Barrett’s oesophagus |
Barrett’s vs non-GORD | 27 | OR, 1.44 (95%CI: 1.20, 1.74) | ||||
Obesity | Cook et al[8], 2008 | BMI | Barrett’s vs GORD | 9 | OR, 0.99/kg per m2 (95%CI: 0.97, 1.01) | Barrett’s oesophagus associated with higher BMI than control but not GORD |
Barrett’s vs general population | 3 | OR, 1.02/kg per m2 (95%CI: 1.01, 1.04) | ||||
Kamat et al[9], 2009 | Obesity (BMI ≥ 30 vs BMI < 30) | Barrett’s vs control (BMI ≥ 30 vs BMI < 30) | 9 | OR, 1.35 (95%CI: 1.15, 1.59) | Barrett’s oesophagus associated with being overweight and obese | |
Overweight (BMI ≥ 25 vs BMI < 25) | Barrett’s vs control | 8 | OR, 1.49 (95%CI: 1.24, 1.80) | |||
Kubo et al[10], 2013 | Waist circumference | Highest vs lowest quartiles | 4 | Males OR, 2.24 (95%CI: 1.08, 4.65) | Barrett’s oesophagus associated with higher waist circumference but not BMI | |
Females OR, 3.75 (95%CI: 1.47, 9.56) | ||||||
BMI | 4 | No significant association | ||||
Symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux | Taylor et al[11], 2010 | Symptoms of GORD | All Barrett’s vs controls | 26 | OR, 2.90 (95%CI: 1.86, 4.54) | Symptoms of GORD associated with all Barrett’s oesophagus, more strongly with long segment Barrett’s oesophagus than with short segment Barrett’s oesophagus |
Short segment Barrett’s vs controls | 12 | OR, 1.59 (95%CI: 1.07, 2.38) | ||||
Long segment Barrett’s vs controls | 11 | OR, 4.16 (95%CI: 2.43, 7.12) | ||||
Helicobacter pylori | Wang et al[12] | Helicobacter pylori infection rate | Barrett’s oesophagus vs all controls | 12 | OR, 0.74 (95%CI: 0.40, 1.37) | Similar helicobacter pylori infection rate in Barrett’s oesophagus to all controls but lower than in endoscopically normal controls |
Barrett’s oesophagus vs endoscopically normal | 9 | OR, 0.50 (95%CI: 0.27, 0.93) | ||||
Fischbach et al[13], 2012 | Helicobacter pylori infection rate | Barrett’s oesophagus vs all controls | 49 | RR, 0.46 (9%CI: 0.35, 0.60) | Lower helicobacter infection rate in patients with Barrett’s oesophagus compared to controls | |
Cag A Helicobacter pylori infection rate | Barrett’s oesophagus vs all controls | 7 | RR, 0.38 (95%CI: 0.19, 0.78) | |||
Hiatus hernia | Andrici et al[14], 2012 | Hiatus hernia presence | Barrett’s oesophagus vs all controls | 31 | OR, 3.94 (95%CI: 3.02, 5.13) | Hiatus hernia associated with Barrett’s oesophagus and more strongly associated with long-segment Barrett’s oesophagus |
- Citation: Gatenby P, Soon Y. Barrett’s oesophagus: Evidence from the current meta-analyses. World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol 2014; 5(3): 178-187
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2150-5330/full/v5/i3/178.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4291/wjgp.v5.i3.178