4.5 Review

Association between Helicobacter pylori infection and the risk of colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

COLORECTAL DISEASE
Volume 15, Issue 7, Pages E352-E364

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/codi.12284

Keywords

Helicobacter pylori; colorectal cancer; colorectal; adenoma; systematic review; meta-analysis

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81172062, 81000988]
  2. Department of Health Statistics, Second Military Medical University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim The existing evidence on the relationship between Helicobacter pylori infection and the risk of colorectal neoplasia is inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review with a meta-analysis to explore this relationship and to determine whether the relationship varies according to the study characteristics. Method We searched the PubMed database and the reference lists of pertinent articles published up to July 2012. Summary odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a random effects model. Results Twenty-seven studies including 3792 cases of colorectal adenoma (CRA) and 3488 cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) were identified. Overall, H. pylori infection was associated with an increased risk of CRA (OR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.39-1.97, I-2 = 54.3%) and CRC (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.18-1.64, I-2 = 35.8%), although there was significant heterogeneity among the studies. Subgroup analysis revealed that the positive correlation did not differ by sex, geographic variation or subsite of neoplasia, but might vary by the method of detection of H. pylori. The study was underpowered to determine the risk of colorectal neoplasia associated with cytotoxin-associated gene A-positive H. pylori. Conclusion This meta-analysis demonstrates a positive association between H. pylori infection and the risk of colorectal neoplasia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available