Acid suppressant use in association with incidence and severe outcomes of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Non-peer-reviewed data, effect measures, and meta-regression analysis on proton pump inhibitor use and COVID-19

“…The debate on the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and COVID-19 outcomes remains, even after the presentation of our comprehensive meta research [ 1 ]. Kim et al [ 2 ] should be commended for their updated meta-analysis reassuring the positive association of current PPI use and severe outcomes of COVID-19, which is consistent with our findings [ 1 ]. We agree that the updated meta-analysis by Kim et al [ 2 ] looks much better than another four updated (or just repeated) meta-analyses in many aspects, such as additional subgroup analyses and meta-regression, specified in the Discussion section and their Supplemental Table 5.…”

“…Kim et al [ 2 ] should be commended for their updated meta-analysis reassuring the positive association of current PPI use and severe outcomes of COVID-19, which is consistent with our findings [ 1 ]. We agree that the updated meta-analysis by Kim et al [ 2 ] looks much better than another four updated (or just repeated) meta-analyses in many aspects, such as additional subgroup analyses and meta-regression, specified in the Discussion section and their Supplemental Table 5. However, we believe that the discussion on non-peer-reviewed studies (or “unpublished data”) in their review [ 2 ] warrants careful clarifications.…”

“…We agree that the updated meta-analysis by Kim et al [ 2 ] looks much better than another four updated (or just repeated) meta-analyses in many aspects, such as additional subgroup analyses and meta-regression, specified in the Discussion section and their Supplemental Table 5. However, we believe that the discussion on non-peer-reviewed studies (or “unpublished data”) in their review [ 2 ] warrants careful clarifications. Moreover, the effect measure and meta-regression used in the meta-analysis by Kim et al [ 2 ] should be clearly characterized.…”

“…However, we believe that the discussion on non-peer-reviewed studies (or “unpublished data”) in their review [ 2 ] warrants careful clarifications. Moreover, the effect measure and meta-regression used in the meta-analysis by Kim et al [ 2 ] should be clearly characterized.…”

“…Third, the inclusion of preprint studies would not introduce additional biases into meta-analyses if a subgroup analysis on peer-reviewed status (peer-reviewed studies vs. non-peer-reviewed studies), sensitivity analysis restricting to peer-reviewed studies, or relevant leave-one-out analysis is performed. Last, the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) [ 11 ] used by Kim et al [ 2 ] to rate the methodological quality of observational studies included in their meta-analysis has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, which do not compromise the importance and utility of NOS in meta-analyses at all.…”