ReviewCureus2024
Perinatal Environmental Risks for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There are limited data on the association of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and environmental risk factors. The aim of this study was to determine the potential associations between perinatal risk factors and EoE. A search was conducted for relevant studies published up to December 12th, 2023, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane databases. Risk ratios with the 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a random-effects model. Case-control or cohort studies that determined perinatal environmental factors within the first year of life and their association with EoE were included. Six case-control studies were included in the analysis. Six studies (2,087 EoE and 6,786 controls) were included for risk of infant antibiotic use with a pooled risk ratio of 1.30 (95%CI: 1.11-1.52, I2 = 76%), and five studies were included for cesarean section with a pooled risk ratio of 1.22 (95%CI: 1.10-1.34, I2 = 5%). There were three studies for breastfeeding with a pooled risk ratio of 1.07 (95%CI: 1.00-1.15, I2 = 0%); five studies were included for preterm birth with a pooled risk ratio of 1.52 (95%CI: 1.14-2.04, I2 = 48%). There were three studies for neonatal intensive care unit admission with a pooled risk ratio of 1.75 (95% CI: 1.41-2.18, I2 = 0%). Publication bias was found between EoE and infant antibiotic use and cesarean section, but not for EoE and preterm birth, neonatal care unit admission, or breastfeeding. This meta-analysis suggests a weak association between antibiotic use during the first year of life, cesarean section, preterm birth, and neonatal intensive care unit admission and a possible risk of EoE. Further studies are warranted to confirm these findings as they may be indirect associations rather than causal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.