Open AccessAspirin and Reducing Risk of Gastric Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Observational Studies
Author(s) -
Than Than Win,
Saint Nway Aye,
Joyce Lau Chui Fern,
Cheng Ong Fei
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of gastrointestinal and liver diseases
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.641
H-Index - 48
eISSN - 1842-1121
pISSN - 1841-8724
DOI - 10.15403/jgld-818
Subject(s) - medicine , aspirin , meta analysis , observational study , study heterogeneity , random effects model , publication bias , relative risk , medline , cancer , web of science , confidence interval , gastroenterology , political science , law
Background and Aims: The latest meta-analysis on the role of aspirin on various cancers was published in early 2018. By including the latest and updated primary observational studies, we aimed to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize stronger evidence on the role of aspirin in reducing gastric cancer (GC) risk.
Methods: The PubMed, Scopus, and MEDLINE databases were systematically searched up to December 2019 to identify relevant studies. Random-effects model was used to calculate summary ORs and 95%CI for I 2 >50%. If the heterogeneity is not significant, the fixed-effects model was used. Overall analysis of the studies, inverse variance weighting after transforming the estimates of each study into log OR and its standard error were used.
Results: 21 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Results showed that aspirin significantly reduced the GC risk (OR=0.64, 95%CI=0.54-0.76) with substantial heterogeneity (I 2 =96%). Effect of GC risk reduction in low dose (OR=0.80, 95%CI=0.59-1.09) is slightly greater than high dose aspirin (OR=1.08, 95%CI=0.77-1.52). Protective effect of aspirin uses >5 years (OR=0.67, 95%CI=0.34-1.31) was greater than <5 years (OR=1.01, 95%CI=0.72-1.43)
Conclusion: In conclusion, this meta-analysis showed that low dose aspirin with longer duration of more than 5 years were associated with a statistically significant reduction in GC risk. However, due to possible confounding variables and bias, these results should be cautiously treated.