Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Systematic review of peptic ulcer disease incidence rates: do studies without validation provide reliable estimates?
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011 Jul; 20(7):718-28.PD

Abstract

PURPOSE

Incidence rate (IR) estimates for peptic ulcer disease (PUD) vary widely among studies. We conducted a systematic review to quantify and examine the discrepancies.

METHODS

Of 4780 articles identified from PubMed and EMBASE databases, 31 published in the last three decades that had reported IRs of PUD in the general population were included. Random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed to calculate pooled estimates and to identify sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

The pooled IR estimate per 1000 person-years was 0.90 (95% confidence interval: 0.78-1.04) for uncomplicated PUD, 0.57 (0.49-0.65) for peptic ulcer bleeding, 0.10 (0.08-0.13) for gastrointestinal perforations, and 3.18 (2.05-4.92) for nonspecific PUD. Within specific outcomes definitions, IR estimates were significantly lower in studies with restriction to hospitalized cases, case validation, and case ascertainment directly from hospital or clinical sources versus computerized health care databases. Younger age, female sex, and later calendar time were also associated with lower PUD incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the IR of uncomplicated PUD was in the order of one case per 1000 person-years in the general population, and that the IR of peptic ulcer complications was around 0.7 cases per 1000 person-years. Comparisons of IR estimates among studies need to take into account disease definition and other study characteristics, particularly whether outcome validation was performed in computerized claims. The use of claims to identify PUD cases might overestimate the IR by around 45%.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, USA.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Systematic Review

Language

eng

PubMed ID

21626606

Citation

Lin, Kueiyu Joshua, et al. "Systematic Review of Peptic Ulcer Disease Incidence Rates: Do Studies Without Validation Provide Reliable Estimates?" Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, vol. 20, no. 7, 2011, pp. 718-28.
Lin KJ, García Rodríguez LA, Hernández-Díaz S. Systematic review of peptic ulcer disease incidence rates: do studies without validation provide reliable estimates? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20(7):718-28.
Lin, K. J., García Rodríguez, L. A., & Hernández-Díaz, S. (2011). Systematic review of peptic ulcer disease incidence rates: do studies without validation provide reliable estimates? Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 20(7), 718-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.2153
Lin KJ, García Rodríguez LA, Hernández-Díaz S. Systematic Review of Peptic Ulcer Disease Incidence Rates: Do Studies Without Validation Provide Reliable Estimates. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20(7):718-28. PubMed PMID: 21626606.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Systematic review of peptic ulcer disease incidence rates: do studies without validation provide reliable estimates? AU - Lin,Kueiyu Joshua, AU - García Rodríguez,Luis A, AU - Hernández-Díaz,Sonia, Y1 - 2011/05/27/ PY - 2010/12/16/received PY - 2011/03/22/revised PY - 2011/03/22/accepted PY - 2011/6/1/entrez PY - 2011/6/1/pubmed PY - 2011/10/25/medline SP - 718 EP - 28 JF - Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety JO - Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf VL - 20 IS - 7 N2 - PURPOSE: Incidence rate (IR) estimates for peptic ulcer disease (PUD) vary widely among studies. We conducted a systematic review to quantify and examine the discrepancies. METHODS: Of 4780 articles identified from PubMed and EMBASE databases, 31 published in the last three decades that had reported IRs of PUD in the general population were included. Random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed to calculate pooled estimates and to identify sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: The pooled IR estimate per 1000 person-years was 0.90 (95% confidence interval: 0.78-1.04) for uncomplicated PUD, 0.57 (0.49-0.65) for peptic ulcer bleeding, 0.10 (0.08-0.13) for gastrointestinal perforations, and 3.18 (2.05-4.92) for nonspecific PUD. Within specific outcomes definitions, IR estimates were significantly lower in studies with restriction to hospitalized cases, case validation, and case ascertainment directly from hospital or clinical sources versus computerized health care databases. Younger age, female sex, and later calendar time were also associated with lower PUD incidence. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the IR of uncomplicated PUD was in the order of one case per 1000 person-years in the general population, and that the IR of peptic ulcer complications was around 0.7 cases per 1000 person-years. Comparisons of IR estimates among studies need to take into account disease definition and other study characteristics, particularly whether outcome validation was performed in computerized claims. The use of claims to identify PUD cases might overestimate the IR by around 45%. SN - 1099-1557 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/21626606/full_citation L2 - https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.2153 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -