XXXX and evidence for association with esophageal and @entity356 : a systematic review and meta-analysis.

@entity1 @entity171 @entity561 @entity5520 @entity1820 @entity418 @entity356
OBJECTIVES: Concerns have been raised about a possible link between @entity5520 use, and in particular @entity561 , and @entity1820 . A number of epidemiological studies have been published with conflicting results. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies, to determine the risk of esophageal and @entity356 in users of @entity171 compared with non-users. DESIGN: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies investigating @entity171 and esophageal or @entity356 . We calculated pooled ORs and 95% CIs for the risk of esophageal or @entity356 in @entity5520 users compared with non-users. We performed a sensitivity analysis of @entity561 as this was the most common single drug studied and is also the most widely used in clinical practice. RESULTS: 11 studies (from 10 papers) examining @entity5520 exposure and @entity1820 (gastric and esophageal), met our inclusion criteria. All studies were retrospective, 6/11 (55%) case-control and 5/11(45%) cohort, and carried out using data from 5 longitudinal clinical databases. Combining 5 studies (1 from each database), we found no increased risk, OR 1.11 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.27) of @entity418 in @entity5520 users compared with non-users and no increased risk of @entity356 in @entity5520 users, OR 0.96 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.12). CONCLUSION: This is the fourth and most detailed meta-analysis on this topic. We have not identified any compelling evidence for a significantly raised risk of @entity418 or @entity356 in male and female @entity1 prescribed @entity171 .
