-
Scandinavian Journal of Work,... Mar 2010Our aim was to review published literature on the association between shift work and gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Our aim was to review published literature on the association between shift work and gastrointestinal (GI) disorders.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted of studies that have reported GI symptoms and diseases among shift workers. We used Medline to search for articles from 1966-2009. Next, we manually searched articles in the reference list of each article and previous reviews.
RESULTS
Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. Four of six studies showed a significant association between shift work and GI symptoms, and five of six studies reported an association between shift work and peptic ulcer disease. Two of three studies showed an association between shift work and functional GI disease. Only a few studies have examined gastroesophageal reflux disease, chronic inflammatory bowel diseases, or GI cancers in relation to shift work.
CONCLUSIONS
Our general judgment is that shift workers appear to have increased risk of GI symptoms and peptic ulcer disease. However, control for potential confounders (eg, smoking, age, socioeconomic status, and other risk factors) was often lacking or insufficient in many of the studies we examined.
Topics: Adult; Europe; Female; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Work Schedule Tolerance; Young Adult
PubMed: 20101379
DOI: 10.5271/sjweh.2897 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Oct 2022Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) continues to be a major health problem worldwide, causing considerable morbidity and mortality due to peptic ulcer disease and gastric... (Review)
Review
Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) continues to be a major health problem worldwide, causing considerable morbidity and mortality due to peptic ulcer disease and gastric cancer. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of 13C/14C-urea breath tests in the diagnosis of H. pylori infection. A PRISMA systematic search appraisal and meta-analysis were conducted. A systematic literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, and Google Scholar was conducted up to August 2022. Generic, methodological and statistical data were extracted from the eligible studies, which reported the sensitivity and specificity of 13C/14C-urea breath tests in the diagnosis of H. pylori infection. A random effect meta-analysis was conducted on crude sensitivity and specificity of 13C/14C-urea breath test rates. Heterogeneity was assessed by Cochran’s Q and I2 tests. The literature search yielded a total of 5267 studies. Of them, 41 articles were included in the final analysis, with a sample size ranging from 50 to 21857. The sensitivity and specificity of 13C/14C-urea breath tests in the diagnosis of H. pylori infection ranged between 64−100% and 60.5−100%, respectively. The current meta-analysis showed that the sensitivity points of estimate were 92.5% and 87.6%, according to the fixed and random models, respectively. In addition, the specificity points of estimate were 89.9% and 84.8%, according to the fixed and random models, respectively. There was high heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 98.128 and 98.516 for the sensitivity and specificity, respectively, p-value < 0.001). The 13C/14C-urea breath tests are highly sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of H. pylori infection.
PubMed: 36292117
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12102428 -
Clinical and Translational... Apr 2021Current guidelines recommend intravenous (IV) proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). We aimed to compare the efficacy of oral and IV... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Current guidelines recommend intravenous (IV) proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). We aimed to compare the efficacy of oral and IV administration of PPIs in PUB.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search in 4 databases for randomized controlled trials, which compared the outcomes of oral PPI therapy with IV PPI therapy for PUB. The primary outcomes were 30-day recurrent bleeding and 30-day mortality. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, while weighted mean differences (WMDs) with CI were calculated for continuous outcomes in meta-analysis. The protocol was registered a priori onto PROSPERO (CRD42020155852).
RESULTS
A total of 14 randomized controlled trials reported 1,951 peptic ulcer patients, 977 and 974 of which were in the control and intervention groups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between oral and IV administration regarding 30-day rebleeding rate (OR = 0.96, CI: 0.65-1.44); 30-day mortality (OR = 0.70, CI: 0.35-1.40); length of hospital stay (WMD = -0.25, CI: -0.93 to -0.42); transfusion requirements (WMD = -0.09, CI: -0.07 to 0.24); need for surgery (OR = 0.91, CI: 0.40-2.07); further endoscopic therapy (OR = 1.04, CI: 0.56-1.93); and need for re-endoscopy (OR = 0.81, CI: 0.52-1.28). Heterogeneity was negligible in all analysis, except for the analysis on the length of hospitalization (I2 = 82.3%, P = 0.001).
DISCUSSION
Recent evidence suggests that the oral administration of PPI is not inferior to the IV PPI treatment in PUB after endoscopic management, but further studies are warranted.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Administration, Oral; Blood Transfusion; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Equivalence Trials as Topic; Humans; Length of Stay; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Secondary Prevention; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33988530
DOI: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000341 -
International Journal of Environmental... Mar 2022The global burden of chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a major concern in public health. Several CLBP epidemiological studies have been conducted in high-income-countries... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The global burden of chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a major concern in public health. Several CLBP epidemiological studies have been conducted in high-income-countries (HICs) with little known in low-and-middle-income-countries (LMICs) due to other competing priorities of communicable diseases. The extrapolation of results of studies from HICs for use in LMICs is difficult due to differences in social norms, healthcare systems, and legislations, yet there is urgent need to address this growing burden. It is against this backdrop that we conducted this review to map the current evidence on the distribution of CLBP in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was conducted from the following databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct databases, World Health Organizations library databases, EMBASE, EBSCOhost by searching the following databases within the platform; academic search complete, CINAHL with full text, health sources: nursing/academic and MEDLINE. The title, abstract and the full text screening phases were performed by two independent reviewers with the third reviewer employed to adjudicate discrepancies. The reference list of all included articles was also searched for eligible articles. This scoping review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation, as well as guided by Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework. A thematic content analysis was used to give a narrative account of the review.
RESULTS
The electronic search strategy retrieved 21,189 articles. Title/abstract and full text screening only identified 11 articles, which were included in this review. The prevalence of CLBP among the general population ranged from 18.1% to 28.2% and from 22.2% to 59.1% among LBP patients. The prevalence of occupation based CLBP ranged from 30.1% to 55.5%. Identified risk factors for CLBP are multifactorial and included biomechanical, psychological, socioeconomic and lifestyle factors, with psychosocial factors playing a significant role. Hypertension, diabetes mellitus, peptic ulcer disease were the most common comorbidities identified. CLBP disability was significantly associated with psychosocial factors. The management of CLBP in primary care follows the traditional biomedical paradigm and primarily involves pain medication and inconsistent with guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS
There are limited epidemiological data on CLBP in SSA, however, this study concluded that the prevalence and risk factors of CLBP in SSA are comparable to reports in HICs. Considering the projected increase in the burden of CLBP in LMICs extensive research effort is needed to close this knowledge gap.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Low Back Pain; Mass Screening; Prevalence; Risk Factors; World Health Organization
PubMed: 35270657
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19052964 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Apr 2005To systematically review the efficacy on ulcer healing of 1-week combination of a proton pump inhibitor plus two antibiotics and to perform a meta-analysis of randomized... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
To systematically review the efficacy on ulcer healing of 1-week combination of a proton pump inhibitor plus two antibiotics and to perform a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to evaluate whether 7 days of proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapy is sufficient to heal peptic ulcer.
METHODS
Studies where 1-week proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapy was administered to heal peptic ulcer were included. Randomized clinical trials comparing the efficacy on ulcer healing of 7-day proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapy versus this same regimen but prolonging the proton pump inhibitor for several more weeks were included in the meta-analysis. Electronic and manual bibliographical searches were conducted. Meta-analysis was performed combining the odds ratios of the individual studies.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies (2342 patients) assessed ulcer healing with 1-week proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapy. Mean healing rate was 86%, and 95% in Helicobacter pylori-eradicated patients. Six studies (862 patients), were included in the meta-analysis. Mean ulcer healing rate with a 7-day treatment was 91% versus 92% when proton pump inhibitor was prolonged for 2-4 more weeks (odds ratio = 1.11; 95% confidence interval = 0.71-1.74).
CONCLUSION
In patients with peptic ulcer and H. pylori infection, prolonging therapy with proton pump inhibitor after a triple therapy for 7 days with a proton pump inhibitor and two antibiotics is not necessary to induce ulcer healing.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Therapy, Combination; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Peptic Ulcer; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 15801914
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02418.x -
Evidence-based Complementary and... 2021A peptic ulcer (PU) is a digestive disorder most commonly found in clinical practice. An oriental herbal formula, Xiao Chai Hu Tang (XCHT), has been used to treat PU for... (Review)
Review
A peptic ulcer (PU) is a digestive disorder most commonly found in clinical practice. An oriental herbal formula, Xiao Chai Hu Tang (XCHT), has been used to treat PU for an extended period in China. The effectiveness and safety of XCHT in treating peptic ulcers was evaluated using a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies were systematically retrieved from CNKI, Embase, Medline, PubMed, SinoMed, VIP, Wanfang, and Web of Science. The following information was extracted from the relevant RCTs: the clinical efficacy rate, recurrence rate, clinical efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine, and the adverse effects. 13 RCTs, including 1334 patients, were included in this review. The meta-analysis showed that treatment with XCHT was superior to conventional pharmacotherapy (CPT) in improving the clinical efficacy rate (RR: 1.20, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 1.08-1.34, =0.0007), poor appetite (RR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.15-0.61, =0.0009), abdominal distension (RR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.39-0.96, =0.03), vomiting (RR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.19-0.55, < 0.0001), and stomach pain (RR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.19-0.68, =0.002) and reducing adverse events (RR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.07-0.69, =0.009). XCHT considerably increased the total clinical efficacy rate (RR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.15-1.30, < 0.00001) as both monotherapy and adjunctive therapy. The recurrence rate (RR = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.16-0.52, < 0.0001) was remarkably decreased in the XCHT plus CPT group. The meta-analysis did not show a significant beneficial effect of XCHT compared with CPT in reducing the recurrence rate (RR = 0.45; 95% CI: 0.07-3.10, =0.42) and acid reflux (RR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.47-1.23, =0.26). Our findings show that XCHT can treat peptic ulcers as part of an alternative medicine approach.
PubMed: 34012475
DOI: 10.1155/2021/6693677 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2013Perforated peptic ulcer is a common abdominal disease that is treated by surgery. The development of laparoscopic surgery has changed the way to treat such abdominal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Perforated peptic ulcer is a common abdominal disease that is treated by surgery. The development of laparoscopic surgery has changed the way to treat such abdominal surgical emergencies. The results of some clinical trials suggest that laparoscopic surgery could be a better strategy than open surgery in the correction of perforated peptic ulcer but the evidence is not strongly in favour for or against this intervention.
OBJECTIVES
To measure the effect of laparoscopic surgical treatment versus open surgical treatment in patients with a diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer in relation to abdominal septic complications, surgical wound infection, extra-abdominal complications, hospital length of stay and direct costs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library (2004, Issue 2), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to July 2004), EMBASE (1985 to November 2004) and LILACS (1988 to November 2004) as well as the reference lists of relevant articles. Searches in all databases were updated in December 2009 and January 2012. We did not confine our search to English language publications.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized clinical trials comparing laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for the repair of perforated peptic ulcer using any mechanical method of closure (suture, omental patch or fibrin sealant).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Primary outcome measures included proportion of septic and other abdominal complications (surgical site infection, suture leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus) and extra-abdominal complications (pulmonary). Secondary outcomes included mortality, time to return to normal diet, time of nasogastric aspiration, hospital length-of-stay and costs. Outcomes were summarized by reporting odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the fixed-effect model.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three randomized clinical trials of acceptable quality. We found no statistically significant differences between laparoscopic and open surgery in the proportion of abdominal septic complications (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.47), pulmonary complications (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.12) or number of septic abdominal complications (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.15). Heterogeneity was significant for pulmonary complications and operating time.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review suggests that a decrease in septic abdominal complications may exist when laparoscopic surgery is used to correct perforated peptic ulcer. However, it is necessary to perform more randomized controlled trials with a greater number of patients to confirm such an assumption, guaranteeing a long learning curve for participating surgeons. With the information provided it could be said that laparoscopic surgery results are not clinically different from those of open surgery.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Peptic Ulcer Perforation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23450555
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004778.pub3 -
Cureus May 2023is a gram-negative aerobic pathogen that primarily colonizes the gastric mucosa. Peptic ulcer disease, atrophic gastritis, gastric cancer, and mucosal-associated... (Review)
Review
is a gram-negative aerobic pathogen that primarily colonizes the gastric mucosa. Peptic ulcer disease, atrophic gastritis, gastric cancer, and mucosal-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma have all been linked to chronic infection. Hence, it is critical to diagnose and treat it as early as possible. There are both invasive and noninvasive tests available to detect it. In this review, the diagnostic abilities of two invasive tests - histology and the rapid urease test (RUT) - are compared in a variety of clinical situations. This systematic review was carried out using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist. We performed a literature search using the PubMed and Google Scholar databases in accordance with the eligibility criteria and ultimately selected eight articles for final analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale adapted for cross-sectional studies, the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA), and the PRISMA 2020 checklist were used to assess the quality of selected articles for cross-sectional studies, traditional literature reviews, and systematic reviews, respectively. According to the findings of the review, both histology and the RUT have high sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing though this varies depending on the clinical situation, making one test superior to the other. Neither of these tests can be considered the gold standard method on its own. Hence, using at least two diagnostic tests at the same time is critical for ensuring high sensitivity and specificity while accurately diagnosing the pathogen.
PubMed: 37362532
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.39360 -
BMC Gastroenterology Mar 2024Both vonoprazan and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are currently used to treat artificial ulcers after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection. However, evidence-based... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of vonoprazan and proton pump inhibitors for the treatment of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection-induced ulcer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Both vonoprazan and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are currently used to treat artificial ulcers after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection. However, evidence-based medicine proving the efficacy of vonoprazan is still lacking. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of vonoprazan and PPIs for the treatment of artificial ulcers after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection.
METHODS
The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to September 2023 for related randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs that compared the efficacy of vonoprazan and PPIs in treating artificial gastric ulcers after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection were included. Two independent reviewers screened the included studies, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. The following outcomes were extracted for comparison: ulcer healing rate, ulcer shrinkage rate, delayed postoperative bleeding rate, and ulcer perforation rate.
RESULTS
Nine randomized controlled trials involving 926 patients were included. The pooled results showed that vonoprazan had a significantly lower rate of delayed postoperative bleeding than did PPIs (RR = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.23-0.91; P = 0.03). No significant differences were found in terms of ulcer healing, shrinkage rates, or ulcer perforation rates between vonoprazan and PPIs.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with PPIs, vonoprazan is superior at reducing delayed postoperative bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection. However, further studies are needed to prove the efficacy of vonoprazan.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
Identifier CRD42024509227.
Topics: Humans; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Stomach Ulcer; Ulcer; Endoscopic Mucosal Resection; Stomach Neoplasms; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pyrroles; Sulfonamides
PubMed: 38491413
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-024-03198-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths. Presently, there is no cure for rheumatoid arthritis and treatment focuses on managing symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility, with the aim of achieving stable remission and improving mobility. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used for treatment of people with rheumatoid arthritis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of celecoxib in people with rheumatoid arthritis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal) to May 18, 2017. We also searched the reference and citation lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib (200 mg and 400 mg daily) versus no intervention, placebo or a traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in people with confirmed rheumatoid arthritis, of any age and either sex. We excluded studies with fewer than 50 participants in each arm or had durations of fewer than four weeks treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with durations of 4 to 24 weeks, published between 1998 and 2014 that involved a total of 3988 adults (mean age = 54 years), most of whom were women (73%). Participants had rheumatoid arthritis for an average of 9.2 years. All studies were assessed at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, evidence was assessed as moderate-to-low quality. Five studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Celecoxib versus placeboWe included two studies (N = 873) in which participants received 200 mg daily or 400 mg daily or placebo. Participants who received celecoxib showed significant clinical improvement compared with those receiving placebo (15% absolute improvement; 95% CI 7% to 25%; RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.86; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 7, 95% CI 5 to 13; 2 studies, 873 participants; moderate to low quality evidence).Participants who received celecoxib reported less pain than placebo-treated people (11% absolute improvement; 95% CI 8% to 14%; NNTB = 4, 95% CI 3 to 6; 1 study, 706 participants) but results were inconclusive for improvement in physical function (MD -0.10, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.10; 1 study, 706 participants).In the celecoxib group, 15/293 participants developed ulcers, compared with 4/99 in the placebo group (Peto OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.63; 1 study, 392 participants; low quality evidence). Nine (of 475) participants in the celecoxib group developed short-term serious adverse events, compared with five (of 231) in the placebo group (Peto OR 0.87 (0.28 to 2.69; 1 study, 706 participants; low quality evidence).There were fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (163/475) compared with placebo (130/231) (22% absolute change; 95% CI 16% to 27%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72; 1 study, 706 participants).Cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke) were not reported. However, regulatory agencies warn of increased cardiovascular event risk associated with celecoxib. Celecoxib versus tNSAIDsSeven studies (N = 2930) compared celecoxib and tNSAIDs (amtolmetin guacyl, diclofenac, ibuprofen, meloxicam, nabumetone, naproxen, pelubiprofen); one study included comparisons of both placebo and tNSAIDs (N = 1149).There was a small improvement, which may not be clinically significant, in numbers of participants achieving ACR20 criteria response in the celecoxib group compared to tNSAIDs (4% absolute improvement; 95% CI 0% less improvement to 8% more improvement; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.23; 4 studies, 1981 participants). There was a lack of evidence of difference between participants in the celecoxib and tNSAID groups in terms of pain or physical function. Results were assessed at moderate-to-low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency).People who received celecoxib had a lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers ≥ 3 mm (34/870) compared with those who received tNSAIDs (116/698). This corresponded to 12% absolute change (95% CI 11% to 13%; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.32; 5 studies, 1568 participants; moderate quality evidence). There were 7% fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (95% CI 4% to 9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.86; 6 studies, 2639 participants).Results were inconclusive for short-term serious adverse events and cardiovascular events (low quality evidence). There were 17/918 serious adverse events in people taking celecoxib compared to 42/1236 among people who received placebo (Peto OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.28; 5 studies, 2154 participants). Cardiovascular events were reported in both celecoxib and placebo groups in one study (149 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Celecoxib may improve clinical symptoms, alleviate pain and contribute to little or no difference in physical function compared with placebo. Celecoxib was associated with fewer numbers of participant withdrawals. Results for incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and short-term serious adverse events were uncertain; however, there were few reported events for either.Celecoxib may slightly improve clinical symptoms compared with tNSAIDs. Results for reduced pain and improved physical function were uncertain. Particpants taking celecoxib had lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and there were fewer withdrawals from trials. Results for cardiovascular events and short-term serious adverse events were also uncertain.Uncertainty about the rate of cardiovascular events between celecoxib and tNSAIDs could be due to risk of bias; another factor is that these were small, short-term trials. It has been reported previously that both celecoxib and tNSAIDs increase cardiovascular event rates. Our confidence in results about harms is therefore low. Larger head-to-head clinical trials comparing celecoxib to other tNSAIDs is needed to better inform clinical practice.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Celecoxib; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomach Ulcer; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28597983
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012095.pub2