Next Article in Journal
An Analysis of the Role of Bisphenol A in Breast and Reproductive-System Cancers
Previous Article in Journal
Diastolic Blood Pressure Abnormalities and Their Relationship with Glycemic Control in Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

The Duration of Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy and the Risk of Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Alsu R. Khurmatullina
1,*,
Dmitrii N. Andreev
1,*,
Yury A. Kucheryavyy
2,
Filipp S. Sokolov
3,
Petr A. Beliy
1,
Andrey V. Zaborovskiy
3 and
Igor V. Maev
1
1
Department of Internal Disease Propaedeutics and Gastroenterology, Russian University of Medicine, 127473 Moscow, Russia
2
Ilyinskaya Hospital, 143421 Krasnogorsk, Russia
3
Department of Pharmacology, Russian University of Medicine, 127473 Moscow, Russia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14(13), 4702; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14134702
Submission received: 17 June 2025 / Revised: 26 June 2025 / Accepted: 27 June 2025 / Published: 3 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Gastroenterology & Hepatopancreatobiliary Medicine)

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) is frequently observed in patients treated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), yet the role of treatment duration in modulating SIBO risk remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the temporal association between PPI use duration and SIBO risk. Methods: Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Russian Science Citation Index, and Google Scholar from 1985 to June 2025 and was previously registered in PROSPERO under the registration number CRD420251031719. Eligible studies included observational designs or clinical trials assessing SIBO in adult PPI users. Results: Twenty-nine studies (n = 3682 PPI patients; n = 2907 controls) were included. The pooled SIBO prevalence among PPI-treated patients was 36.839% (95% CI: 29.703–44.277), significantly higher than that among controls (19.887%; 95% CI: 12.027–29.399). PPI use was associated with increased SIBO risk (OR = 2.143; 95% CI: 1.446–3.175), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 77.61%). A duration-dependent trend was observed: our meta-regression analysis demonstrated a significant positive association between PPI treatment duration and SIBO prevalence with the regression coefficient 4.265% (95% CI: 1.827–6.384; p = 0.0024), indicating that each additional month of PPI therapy was associated with a 4.265 percentage increase in SIBO risk. Conclusions: PPI use significantly increases the risk of SIBO, with longer treatment durations associated with higher odds.

1. Introduction

Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) is a condition characterized by a significant increase in the number of bacteria in the small intestine, manifesting with gastrointestinal symptoms such as abdominal bloating, flatulence, nausea, abdominal pain, and diarrhea [1,2]. The global prevalence of SIBO varies widely, reported between 2.5% and 22%, with higher rates observed in older adults and individuals with comorbid conditions [3]. In individuals with gastrointestinal symptoms, the prevalence of SIBO can reach approximately 34% [4]. The clinical significance of SIBO lies in its ability to mimic the symptoms of several other GI diseases, complicating differential diagnosis in routine practice and often contributing to treatment resistance in associated conditions [5].
The long-term use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is one of the most well-known risk factors for SIBO [2,6]. Changes in gastric pH affect the survival patterns of specific bacterial genera and species and promote their active migration throughout the GI tract [7]. This alteration in the microbial environment may reduce colonization resistance and facilitate overgrowth in the small intestine, particularly by oral-origin or facultative anaerobic bacteria [7]. The early meta-analysis (2018), which summarized 19 studies (n = 7055), demonstrated an increased risk of developing SIBO in patients taking PPIs (OR 1.71; 95% CI: 1.20–2.43) [8]. A large multicenter study (n = 1851) showed that symptoms characteristic of SIBO (diarrhea, bloating, abdominal pain, and discomfort) first appeared after a course of PPI therapy in 44.1% of cases [9]. Despite the well-documented association between PPI use and the development of SIBO, the relationship between the duration of PPI therapy and the risk of SIBO persistence remains insufficiently explored. While existing meta-analyses have established PPI use as a significant risk factor for SIBO [6,8], the impact of short-term versus long-term PPI exposure on bacterial overgrowth dynamics is less clear.
This meta-analysis aims to systematically evaluate the temporal relationship between PPI intake duration and SIBO risk, focusing on whether longer PPI exposure correlates with a higher incidence of SIBO.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Sources and Search

This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines [10] and was pre-registered in the PROSPERO registry (CRD420251031719) to ensure methodological transparency and minimize bias. A completed PRISMA-P checklist can be accessed from the Supplementary Materials, Table S1. The search was conducted across several electronic databases, including MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Russian Science Citation Index, and Google Scholar. Publications from 1 January 1985 to 1 June 2025 were considered. A comprehensive search strategy was developed using combinations of keywords and Boolean operators tailored to each database. The search strategy in MEDLINE/PubMed included the following terms: (“proton pump inhibitor”[tiab] OR “proton pump inhibitors”[tiab] OR PPI [tiab] OR omeprazole[tiab] OR pantoprazole[tiab] OR esomeprazole[tiab] OR lansoprazole[tiab]) AND (“small intestinal bacterial overgrowth”[tiab] OR “small bowel bacterial overgrowth”[tiab] OR SIBO[tiab] OR “bacterial overgrowth”[tiab]).

2.2. Study Selection

The study screening was carried out using Rayyan software. Two reviewers (A.R.K. and D.N.A.) independently evaluated titles and abstracts. Full-text screening followed for studies that appeared potentially relevant. Studies were deemed eligible if they met the following inclusion criteria: observational studies (cohort, case–control, cross-sectional) and clinical trials that evaluate the association between PPI use and SIBO risk in adults (≥18 years) with SIBO confirmed by hydrogen/methane breath testing or duodenal/jejunal culture. Studies had to provide sufficient data for effect size calculation. We excluded case reports, animal studies, pediatric populations, and studies involving patients with confounding conditions (e.g., prior GI surgery, Crohn’s disease, immunosuppression, tumor, systemic sclerosis). Duplicate datasets were thoroughly analyzed and only one study was chosen for the final analysis.
The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale for observational studies. Inter-observer agreement was quantified using Cohen’s kappa statistic, with the widely accepted interpretation scale: poor (κ ≤ 0.20), fair (κ = 0.21–0.40), moderate (κ = 0.41–0.60), good (κ = 0.61–0.80), and excellent agreement (κ > 0.80). The analysis encompassed both global inter-rater consistency and item-level agreement using these established thresholds.

2.3. Data Extraction

Two investigators (A.R.K. and D.N.A.) independently extracted data using standardized forms, documenting study characteristics such as publication year and geographic origin and detailed methodological information about SIBO diagnostic approaches. For each study, we recorded demographic parameters: the mean age of participants and cohort composition—including the number of patients receiving PPI therapy, corresponding control group sizes, and SIBO prevalence rates in both populations. More importantly, we extracted treatment duration data. The screening process was conducted by two medical experts (F.S.S. and P.A.B.) who independently assessed all identified studies through the AI-assisted Rayyan platform (https://www.rayyan.ai, accessed on 3 May 2025)), employing a three-stage evaluation procedure: initial title/abstract review against inclusion criteria and comprehensive full-text analysis of potentially relevant studies, followed by independent data extraction performed by two additional researchers (Y.A.K. and I.V.M.). To maintain rigorous data quality standards, we established verification protocols involving direct correspondence with study authors to clarify methodological details and formal solicitations for supplementary sensitivity testing data when original publications contained incomplete information.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The primary focus was on calculating odds ratios (ORs). Also we analyzed pooled SIBO ratings in PPI-treated patients with 95% confidence intervals and assessed study heterogeneity using Cochran’s Q test and I2 statistics. Significant heterogeneity was defined as I2 > 50% and p < 0.05. Statistical analyses were performed in MedCalc 23.1.5 (Ostend, Belgium) on Microsoft Windows 11 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). To identify potential sources of heterogeneity, we conducted subanalyses comparing study quality (assessed by NOS scores) and diagnostic methods. Of particular importance was the temporal patterns, which were further analyzed using meta-regression implemented in Python 3.9.21 (Amsterdam, The Netherlands).
To evaluate potential publication bias, we employed both the visual inspection of funnel plot asymmetry and formal statistical tests (Begg–Mazumdar and Egger’s tests).

3. Results

3.1. Search Results

Our comprehensive literature search across electronic databases yielded an initial pool of 1014 potentially eligible scientific publications. After the duplicate search process 617 studies were removed. During the title/abstract screening process, we systematically excluded 338 records for the following reasons: 282 articles were irrelevant to our research focus, 44 represented case reports, and there were 10 reviews and 2 meta-analyses without original data.
The remaining 59 studies underwent meticulous full-text evaluation based on our inclusion criteria. This thorough assessment resulted in the exclusion of 30 additional articles that did not meet our methodological requirements, including 15 studies with abstracts only, 6 studies that included pediatric patients, 5 that did not accurately define SIBO cases, 3 studies that recruited a study population overlapping with that of another study and 1 study included cancer patients. The systematic review process and the number of papers identified in each stage are shown in Figure 1.

3.2. Characteristics of Included Studies

Final analysis included 29 studies [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]: 7 studies were conducted in the USA [17,19,22,23,26,28,35], 3 in the UK [12,15,16], 3 in Italy [18,20,36], 2 in Russia [24,39], 2 in Switzerland [11,14], 1 in Brazil [21], 1 in Argentina [25], 1 in Japan [27], 1 in Austria [29], 1 in Greece [30], 1 in India [31], 1 in Poland [32], 1 in China [33], 1 in Malaysia [34], 1 in Mexico [37], 1 in South Korea [38], and one in South Africa [13]. The total number of included PPI patients was 3682 and the total number of control patients was 2907. The gold-standard method for diagnostic aspirate culture was used in eight studies [11,13,14,16,19,23,26,30], the lactulose hydrogen breath test (LHBT) was used in eight studies [12,17,21,25,27,31,33,36,39], the glucose hydrogen breath test (GHBT) was used in seven studies [15,18,20,22,29,32,34,37,38], one study did not specify the substrate [24], the xylose breath test (XBT) was used in one study [28], and one study used 16S rRNA sequencing test [35]. This data is presented in Table 1.

3.3. Study Quality Evaluation and Reliability Analysis

Nine studies were of high methodological rigor (NOS 8–9), while twenty exhibited moderate limitations (NOS 6–7). Several key limitations affected study quality in our analysis. Most notably, 24.14% of included studies (7 out of 29) demonstrated restricted population representativeness due to small sample sizes (fewer than 30 PPI-treated patients). To ensure methodological rigor, we implemented robust quality control measures, quantifying inter-rater reliability through Cohen’s kappa coefficient. The results confirmed a strong consensus among reviewers, with κ = 0.65 (indicating substantial agreement) for study inclusion decisions and κ = 0.96 (reflecting near-perfect agreement) for data extraction processes.

3.4. Prevalence of SIBO in PPI Patients

The pooled prevalence of SIBO in PPI-treated patients and controls was 36.839% (95% CI: 29.703–44.277; Figure 2) and 19.887% (95% CI: 12.027–29.399; Figure 3), respectively, and heterogeneity was observed in both cases ( I P P I   p a t i e n t s 2 = 94.93%; I c o n t r o l s 2 = 96.66%; p < 0.0001). We assessed publication bias using funnel plot visualization and statistical tests. The funnel plot shows symmetrical study distribution, suggesting no significant bias (Figure 4). Both the Begg–Mazumdar test (p > 0.05) and Egger’s test (p > 0.05) confirmed this finding, demonstrating no evidence of substantial publication bias in our analysis. When analyzing studies that implied the gold-standard method (aspirate culture method), this tendency was also observed (35.877% (95% CI: 19.503–54.158) in PPI-treated patients and 10.783% (95% CI: 6.311–16.273) in controls).
The random-effects model revealed a significantly higher risk of SIBO among PPI-treated patients compared to controls (OR = 2.143; 95% CI: 1.446–3.175), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 77.61%; 95% CI: 65.03–85.67%; p < 0.0001).

3.5. Subanalyses

To evaluate the potential influence of PPI treatment duration on SIBO risk, we stratified the analysis into three distinct temporal categories: short-term use (less than one month—1), intermediate-term use (two to six months—2), and long-term use (more than six months—3). The analysis revealed a clear duration-dependent relationship, with progressively increasing odds ratios observed across the treatment periods. Patients receiving PPI therapy for less than one month demonstrated an odds ratio of 1.698 (95% CI: 0.185–15.626). The risk estimate rose to 4.002 (95% CI: 1.286–12.448) for those treated for one to six months. Most notably, long-term PPI use exceeding six months was associated with the highest risk elevation, yielding an odds ratio of 4.225 (95% CI: 1.432–12.464). These findings suggest a potentially significant temporal component in the development of PPI-associated SIBO, with longer treatment durations corresponding to progressively greater risk magnitudes.
To eradicate potential methodological influences on our findings, we performed additional stratified analyses according to diagnostic technique (Table 2). Among studies utilizing the gold-standard aspirate culture method, the prevalence of SIBO in PPI-treated patients was 35.877% (95% CI: 19.503–54.158). For investigations employing LHBT, the detected prevalence was slightly higher at 39.634% (95% CI: 27.027–52.984). Conversely, studies using GHBT demonstrated a more moderate prevalence estimate of 33.541% (95% CI: 21.561–46.711). This diagnostic-method-specific analysis reveals remarkable consistency across different assessment approaches, with all three principal diagnostic modalities yielding prevalence estimates within a relatively narrow range of approximately 33.5% to 39.6% (p < 0.0003 when comparing three methodologies between each other).

3.6. Meta-Regression

Our meta-regression analysis (Figure 5) demonstrated a significant positive association between PPI treatment duration and SIBO prevalence with the regression coefficient 4.265% (95% CI: 1.827–6.384; p = 0.0024), indicating that each additional month of PPI therapy was associated with a 4.265 percentage increase in SIBO risk.

3.7. Assessment of Publication Bias

To investigate the substantial heterogeneity observed in our primary analysis, we performed two subgroup analyses based on study quality as assessed by the NOS. The first subgroup included studies with moderate quality scores (NOS 6–7), which demonstrated a SIBO prevalence of 38.417% (95% CI: 28.714–48.609) among PPI users. The second subgroup comprised higher-quality studies (NOS 8–9), showing a slightly lower prevalence of 33.403% (95% CI: 23.192–44.470).
Notably, the difference between these two subgroups was relatively modest, with only a 5.014 percentage point (p = 0.0512) variation in SIBO prevalence estimates. More importantly, both subgroup estimates closely aligned with the overall pooled prevalence obtained in our overall analysis, reinforcing the robustness and consistency of our main findings. This concordance across different methodological quality tiers suggests that study quality, while contributing to some degree of heterogeneity, did not substantially alter the fundamental association between PPI use and SIBO risk.

4. Discussion

Our meta-analysis, encompassing 29 studies with a total of 3682 proton pump inhibitor (PPI) users and 2907 controls, reveals a significantly higher prevalence of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) among PPI-treated patients (36.8%; 95% CI: 29.7–44.3%) compared to controls (19.9%; 95% CI: 12.0–29.4%). Notably, a duration-dependent relationship was observed: patients undergoing PPI therapy for over six months exhibited the highest risk (OR = 4.225; 95% CI: 1.432–12.464). These findings underscore a robust association between prolonged PPI use and increased SIBO risk.
Several meta-analyses have investigated the association between PPI use and SIBO. Notably, our updated meta-analysis builds upon and significantly extends the findings of earlier studies conducted in 2012 [6] and 2016 [8]. While the previous analyses provided evidence of an increased risk of SIBO among PPI users, they were limited in scope and data range. Our study, incorporating data up to March 2025, offers a more comprehensive perspective on the relationship.
The 2012 meta-analysis included 11 studies and a total of 3134 patients. It reported an overall OR of 2.282 (95% CI: 1.238–4.205), suggesting a significant association between PPI use and SIBO. The 2016 analysis was more expansive, including 19 studies and 7055 patients. It found a slightly lower pooled OR of 1.71 (95% CI: 1.20–2.43). Nevertheless, neither prior study assessed the impact of PPI therapy duration.
In contrast, our 2025 meta-analysis includes 29 studies published between 1985 and 2025, totaling 9496 subjects. We utilized a broader set of databases—MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and the Russian Science Citation Index. All included studies were assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, with inter-rater agreement measured using the κ-statistic. Our findings indicate a pooled OR of 2.143 (95% CI: 1.446–3.175), reinforcing the association between PPI use and an increased risk of SIBO. Unlike the previous meta-analyses, our subgroup analysis did not reveal significant variation in effect size across diagnostic methods, suggesting a more consistent risk regardless of how SIBO is identified. Additionally, we conducted meta-regression analyses, which revealed that the duration of PPI therapy is a significant predictor of SIBO risk—longer treatment periods were associated with higher odds of developing SIBO, a novel finding not previously reported.
The clinical implications are significant, given that SIBO is associated with various conditions, including irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, chronic pancreatitis, liver cirrhosis, and metabolic disorders like diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease [40,41,42,43,44]. The widespread prescription of PPIs for acid-related disorders—such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and peptic ulcers—further amplifies the relevance of our findings [45]. PPIs are often recommended as the first-line treatment for these conditions, with therapy durations ranging from 4 to 8 weeks [46,47]. However, in cases of chronic or recurrent GERD, maintenance therapy may extend up to six months or longer [46], and for Barrett’s esophagus, lifelong PPI therapy is commonly advised [48]. All of these patients have a high risk of SIBO as a consequence of intestinal symptoms, which was shown in recent works [7,49].
International real-world data indicates that prolonged PPI use beyond two months is common. Use varies regionally—for example, in Australia 25% of initial PPI users are on maintenance regimens [50], while among older adults in Portugal nearly 79% exceed the guideline-recommended 8 weeks [51]. Over-the-counter availability further complicates exposure assessment, contributing between 1 and 10% of national PPI consumption in some countries [52]. These patterns underscore that a substantial proportion of patients fall into our intermediate- and long-term exposure subgroups.
Given the potential for long-term PPI use to increase SIBO risk, it is imperative to implement deprescribing protocols where appropriate. While such protocols have been developed, their integration into clinical practice remains limited in many healthcare systems [53,54,55]. Enhancing awareness and application of these strategies could mitigate the risk of SIBO and its associated complications in patients requiring prolonged PPI therapy.
Our meta-analysis has several limitations. First, the lack of standardized diagnostic criteria for SIBO likely contributes to heterogeneity, as studies employed varying thresholds for breath tests and differing techniques for aspirate cultures. Second, the inclusion of studies from 15 countries introduces potential geographical variations in microbiome composition, dietary habits, and PPI prescribing practices. Third, a notable proportion (24.14%) of the included studies had small sample sizes (<30 PPI-treated patients), which may limit the precision of subgroup analyses. Fourth, while nine studies were of high methodological quality (NOS 8–9), the majority (n = 20) had moderate limitations, particularly in patient selection and comparability. Finally, dietary influences may have impacted the observed associations.
Despite these limitations, our study represents the most extensive and methodologically rigorous meta-analysis to date on PPI-associated SIBO. These findings underscore the importance of clinical attention to long-term PPI users and suggest potential strategies for risk management. Future research should prioritize prospective cohort studies with standardized diagnostic protocols and severe adjustment for potential variables to further clarify this relationship and explore therapeutic interventions.

5. Conclusions

Our meta-analysis demonstrates that SIBO is a frequent complication in PPI-treated patients, affecting approximately 36.8% of them. Given the significant gastrointestinal and systemic consequences associated with SIBO, clinicians should maintain strong suspicion of this condition in patients receiving prolonged PPI treatment.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm14134702/s1. Table S1. PRISMA NMA Checklist of Items to Include When Reporting a Systematic Review Involving a Network Meta-analysis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.N.A. and F.S.S.; methodology, I.V.M. and A.V.Z.; validation, Y.A.K. and D.N.A.; formal analysis, P.A.B. and Y.A.K.; investigation, A.R.K. and F.S.S.; data curation, I.V.M. and P.A.B.; writing—original draft preparation, D.N.A. and A.R.K.; writing—review and editing, I.V.M. and F.S.S.; supervision, A.V.Z. and P.A.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

During the preparation of the manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT (powered by OpenAI’s language model, GPT-4.o mini; https://openai.com/, accessed on 6 June 2025) as a supplementary tool to enhance language clarity and optimize structure. All AI-assisted content was subsequently reviewed, manually edited, and rigorously validated by the authors, who assume full responsibility for the accuracy of the data and the integrity of the interpretations presented.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Pimentel, M.; Saad, R.J.; Long, M.D.; Rao, S.S.C. ACG Clinical Guideline: Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2020, 115, 165–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Silva, B.C.D.; Ramos, G.P.; Barros, L.L.; Ramos, A.F.P.; Domingues, G.; Chinzon, D.; Passos, M.D.C.F. Diagnosis and treatment of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth: An official position paper from the Brazilian federation of gastroenterology. Arq. Gastroenterol. 2025, 62, e24107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Skrzydło-Radomańska, B.; Cukrowska, B. How to Recognize and Treat Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth? J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 6017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Liu Chen Kiow, J.; Bellila, R.; Therrien, A.; Sidani, S.; Bouin, M. Predictors of Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth in Symptomatic Patients Referred for Breath Testing. J. Clin. Med. Res. 2020, 12, 655–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Losurdo, G.; Salvatore D’Abramo, F.; Indellicati, G.; Lillo, C.; Ierardi, E.; Di Leo, A. The Influence of Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth in Digestive and Extra-Intestinal Disorders. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 3531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Lo, W.K.; Chan, W.W. Proton pump inhibitor use and the risk of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth: A meta-analysis. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2013, 11, 483–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bruno, G.; Zaccari, P.; Rocco, G.; Scalese, G.; Panetta, C.; Porowska, B.; Pontone, S.; Severi, C. Proton pump inhibitors and dysbiosis: Current knowledge and aspects to be clarified. World J. Gastroenterol. 2019, 25, 2706–2719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Su, T.; Lai, S.; Lee, A.; He, X.; Chen, S. Meta-analysis: Proton pump inhibitors moderately increase the risk of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. J. Gastroenterol. 2018, 53, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Schmulson, M.J.; Frati-Munari, A.C. Bowel symptoms in patients that receive proton pump inhibitors. Results of a multicenter survey in Mexico. Rev. Gastroenterol. Mex. 2019, 84, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fried, M.; Siegrist, H.; Frei, R.; Froehlich, F.; Duroux, P.; Thorens, J.; Blum, A.; Bille, J.; Gonvers, J.J.; Gyr, K. Duodenal bacterial overgrowth during treatment in outpatients with omeprazole. Gut 1994, 35, 23–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  12. Gough, A.; Andrews, D.; Bacon, P.A.; Emery, P. Evidence of omeprazole-induced small bowel bacterial overgrowth in patients with scleroderma. Br. J. Rheumatol. 1995, 34, 976–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Lewis, S.J.; Franco, S.; Young, G.; O’Keefe, S.J. Altered bowel function and duodenal bacterial overgrowth in patients treated with omeprazole. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 1996, 10, 557–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Thorens, J.; Froehlich, F.; Schwizer, W.; Saraga, E.; Bille, J.; Gyr, K.; Duroux, P.; Nicolet, M.; Pignatelli, B.; Blum, A.L.; et al. Bacterial overgrowth during treatment with omeprazole compared with cimetidine: A prospective randomised double blind study. Gut 1996, 39, 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  15. Hutchinson, S.; Logan, R. The effect of long-term omeprazole on the glucose-hydrogen breath test in elderly patients. Age Ageing 1997, 26, 87–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Pereira, S.P.; Gainsborough, N.; Dowling, R.H. Drug-induced hypochlorhydria causes high duodenal bacterial counts in the elderly. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 1998, 12, 99–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Law, D.; Pimentel, M. Proton pump inhibitor therapy does not affect hydrogen production on lactulose breath test in subjects with IBS. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2010, 55, 2302–2308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Lombardo, L.; Foti, M.; Ruggia, O.; Chiecchio, A. Increased incidence of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth during proton pump inhibitor therapy. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2010, 8, 504–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Choung, R.S.; Ruff, K.C.; Malhotra, A.; Herrick, L.; Locke, G.R., 3rd; Harmsen, W.S.; Zinsmeister, A.R.; Talley, N.J.; Saito, Y.A. Clinical predictors of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth by duodenal aspirate culture. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2011, 33, 1059–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Compare, D.; Pica, L.; Rocco, A.; De Giorgi, F.; Cuomo, R.; Sarnelli, G.; Romano, M.; Nardone, G. Effects of long-term PPI treatment on producing bowel symptoms and SIBO. Eur. J. Clin. Investig. 2011, 41, 380–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Costa, M.B.; Azeredo ILJr Marciano, R.D.; Caldeira, L.M.; Bafutto, M. Evaluation of small intestine bacterial overgrowth in patients with functional dyspepsia through H2 breath test. Arq. Gastroenterol. 2012, 49, 279–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Ratuapli, S.K.; Ellington, T.G.; O’Neill, M.T.; Umar, S.B.; Harris, L.A.; Foxx-Orenstein, A.E.; Burdick, G.E.; Dibaise, J.K.; Lacy, B.E.; Crowell, M.D. Proton pump inhibitor therapy use does not predispose to small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2012, 107, 730–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Jacobs, C.; Coss Adame, E.; Attaluri, A.; Valestin, J.; Rao, S.S. Dysmotility and proton pump inhibitor use are independent risk factors for small intestinal bacterial and/or fungal overgrowth. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2013, 37, 1103–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  24. Loginov, V.A.; Minushkin, O.N. Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth in Patients with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Long-Term Using Proton Pump Inhibitors. Kremlin Med. Clin. Bull. 2014, 30–33. [Google Scholar]
  25. Senderovky, M.; Lasa, J.; Dima, G.; Peralta, D.; Argüello, M.; Soifer, L. Influence of proton pump inhibitors on intestinal fermentative profile: A case-control study. Acta Gastroenterol. Latinoam. 2014, 44, 205–209. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  26. Franco, D.L.; Disbrow, M.B.; Kahn, A.; Koepke, L.M.; Harris, L.A.; Harrison, M.E.; Crowell, M.D.; Ramirez, F.C. Duodenal Aspirates for Small Intestine Bacterial Overgrowth: Yield, PPIs, and Outcomes after Treatment at a Tertiary Academic Medical Center. Gastroenterol. Res. Pract. 2015, 2015, 971582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  27. Fujiwara, Y.; Watanabe, T.; Muraki, M.; Yamagami, H.; Tanigawa, T.; Shiba, M.; Tominaga, K.; Arakawa, T. Association between chronic use of proton pump inhibitors and small- intestinal bacterial overgrowth assessed using lactulose hydrogen breath tests. Hepatogastroenterology 2015, 62, 268–272. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  28. Schatz, R.A.; Zhang, Q.; Lodhia, N.; Shuster, J.; Toskes, P.P.; Moshiree, B. Predisposing factors for positive D-Xylose breath test for evaluation of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth: A retrospective study of 932 patients. World J. Gastroenterol. 2015, 21, 4574–4582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  29. Enko, D.; Kriegshäuser, G. Functional 13C-urea and glucose hydrogen/methane breath tests reveal significant association of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth in individuals with active Helicobacter pylori infection. Clin. Biochem. 2017, 50, 46–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Giamarellos-Bourboulis, E.J.; Pyleris, E.; Barbatzas, C.; Pistiki, A.; Pimentel, M. Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth is associated with irritable bowel syndrome and is independent of proton pump inhibitor usage. BMC Gastroenterol. 2016, 16, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  31. Revaiah, P.C.; Kochhar, R.; Rana, S.V.; Berry, N.; Ashat, M.; Dhaka, N.; Rami Reddy, Y.; Sinha, S.K. Risk of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth in patients receiving proton pump inhibitors versus proton pump inhibitors plus prokinetics. JGH Open 2018, 2, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  32. Sieczkowska, A.; Landowski, P.; Gibas, A.; Kamińska, B.; Lifschitz, C. Long-term proton pump inhibitor therapy leads to small bowel bacterial overgrowth as determined by breath hydrogen and methane excretion. J. Breath Res. 2018, 12, 036006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Zhang, R.; Li, Y.; Ma, J.X.; Tang, S.; Li, C.M.; Wan, J. The effects of continuous proton pump inhibitor therapy on small intestinal bacterial overgrowth in elderly. Zhonghua Nei Ke Za Zhi 2020, 59, 706–710. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Chuah, K.H.; Wong, M.S.; Tan, P.O.; Lim, S.Z.; Beh, K.H.; Chong, S.C.S.; Zulkifli, K.K.; Thalha, A.M.; Mahadeva, S.; Lee, Y.Y. Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth In Various Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders: A Case-Control Study. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2022, 67, 3881–3889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Weitsman, S.; Celly, S.; Leite, G.; Mathur, R.; Sedighi, R.; Barlow, G.M.; Morales, W.; Sanchez, M.; Parodi, G.; Villanueva-Millan, M.J.; et al. Effects of Proton Pump Inhibitors on the Small Bowel and Stool Microbiomes. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2022, 67, 224–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. DEBastiani, R.; Lopetuso, L.R.; DEBastiani, M.; Bacchin, P.; Benedetto, E.; Boscariolo, L.; Caneve, R.; Chesani, F.; Chiumeo, F.; Civic, Z.; et al. Assessment of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth and methane production in patients on chronic proton-pump inhibitor treatment: Prevalence and role of rifaximin in its management in primary care. Minerva Gastroenterol. 2023, 69, 523–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Durán-Rosas, C.; Priego-Parra, B.A.; Morel-Cerda, E.; Mercado-Jauregui, L.A.; Aquino-Ruiz, C.A.; Triana-Romero, A.; Amieva-Balmori, M.; Velasco, J.A.V.; Remes-Troche, J.M. Incidence of Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth and Symptoms After 7 Days of Proton Pump Inhibitor Use: A Study on Healthy Volunteers. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2024, 69, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Lim, N.R.; Lim, S.; Chung, W.C. A Study on the Glucose Breath Test Positivity Rate and Occurrence of Small Intestine Bacterial Overgrowth-Related Symptoms Caused by Long-Term Use of Proton Pump Inhibitor (PPI) Versus Potassium-Competitive Acid Blocker (P-CAB) in Elderly Patients: SIBO Between PPI and P-CAB. Adv. Pharmacol. Pharm. Sci. 2024, 2024, 6069151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  39. Maev, I.V.; Andreev, D.N.; Shaburov, R.I.; Zaborovskiy, A.V.; Fomenko, A.K.; Sokolov, F.S.; Tsaregorodtsev, S.V.; Devkota, M.K.; Dicheva, D.T.; Cheremushkin, S.V.; et al. Study of the efficacy of combined therapy with rifaximin and Saccharomyces boulardii CNCM I-745 in patients with small intestinal bacterial overgrowth during long-term proton pump inhibitor use. Ter. Arkhiv 2025, 97, 4–11. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  40. Capurso, G.; Signoretti, M.; Archibugi, L.; Stigliano, S.; Delle Fave, G. Systematic review and meta-analysis: Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth in chronic pancreatitis. United Eur. Gastroenterol. J. 2016, 4, 697–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ford, A.C.; Spiegel, B.M.; Talley, N.J.; Moayyedi, P. Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth in irritable bowel syndrome: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2009, 7, 1279–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Shah, A.; Morrison, M.; Burger, D.; Martin, N.; Rich, J.; Jones, M.; Koloski, N.; Walker, M.M.; Talley, N.J.; Holtmann, G.J. Systematic review with meta-analysis: The prevalence of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth in inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2019, 49, 624–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Maslennikov, R.; Pavlov, C.; Ivashkin, V. Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth in cirrhosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatol. Int. 2018, 12, 567–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Feng, X.; Li, X.Q. The prevalence of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth in diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aging 2022, 14, 975–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  45. Wang, Z.T.; Tan, W.T.; Huang, J.L.; Zhang, P.F.; Li, Q.; Wang, M.M.; Meng, M.M.; Su, H.; Guo, C.M.; Liu, H. Correlation Between Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth: Analysis of Intestinal Microbiome and Metabolic Characteristics. J. Inflamm. Res. 2025, 18, 33–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  46. Katz, P.O.; Dunbar, K.B.; Schnoll-Sussman, F.H.; Greer, K.B.; Yadlapati, R.; Spechler, S.J. ACG Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2022, 117, 27–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  47. Kamada, T.; Satoh, K.; Itoh, T.; Ito, M.; Iwamoto, J.; Okimoto, T.; Kanno, T.; Sugimoto, M.; Chiba, T.; Nomura, S.; et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease 2020. J. Gastroenterol. 2021, 56, 303–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  48. Shaheen, N.J.; Falk, G.W.; Iyer, P.G.; Souza, R.F.; Yadlapati, R.H.; Sauer, B.G.; Wani, S. Diagnosis and Management of Barrett’s Esophagus: An Updated ACG Guideline. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2022, 117, 559–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  49. Ghoshal, U.C.; Shukla, R.; Ghoshal, U. Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth and Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Bridge between Functional Organic Dichotomy. Gut Liver 2017, 11, 196–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  50. Daniels, B.; Pearson, S.A.; Buckley, N.A.; Bruno, C.; Zoega, H. Long-term use of proton-pump inhibitors: Whole-of-population patterns in Australia 2013–2016. Ther. Adv. Gastroenterol. 2020, 13, 1756284820913743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  51. Romano, S.; Rodrigues, A.T.; Torre, C.; Perelman, J. Patterns of outpatient proton-pump inhibitors use among older adults in a duplicative health system: Comparing public and private prescribing. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2025, 25, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  52. Hálfdánarson, Ó.Ö.; Pottegård, A.; Björnsson, E.S.; Lund, S.H.; Ogmundsdottir, M.H.; Steingrímsson, E.; Ogmundsdottir, H.M.; Zoega, H. Proton-pump inhibitors among adults: A nationwide drug-utilization study. Ther. Adv. Gastroenterol. 2018, 11, 1756284818777943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  53. Rossi, A.; Perrella, L.; Scotti, S.; Olmastroni, E.; Galimberti, F.; Ardoino, I.; Orlando, V.; Menditto, E.; Franchi, C.; Casula, M. Approaches to Deprescribing Proton Pump Inhibitors in Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 6283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  54. Farrell, B.; Pottie, K.; Thompson, W.; Boghossian, T.; Pizzola, L.; Rashid, F.J.; Rojas-Fernandez, C.; Walsh, K.; Welch, V.; Moayyedi, P. Deprescribing proton pump inhibitors: Evidence-based clinical practice guideline. Can. Fam. Physician 2017, 63, 354–364. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  55. Targownik, L.E.; Fisher, D.A.; Saini, S.D. AGA Clinical Practice Update on De-Prescribing of Proton Pump Inhibitors: Expert Review. Gastroenterology 2022, 162, 1334–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Flow chart detailing the study selection strategy.
Figure 1. Flow chart detailing the study selection strategy.
Jcm 14 04702 g001
Figure 2. Forest plot showing the generalized prevalence of SIBO in PPI-treated patients [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39].
Figure 2. Forest plot showing the generalized prevalence of SIBO in PPI-treated patients [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39].
Jcm 14 04702 g002
Figure 3. Comparison of SIBO prevalence between PPI and control groups.
Figure 3. Comparison of SIBO prevalence between PPI and control groups.
Jcm 14 04702 g003
Figure 4. Funnel plot analysis of publication bias in SIBO prevalence among PPI-treated patients. Each point on the funnel plot represents an individual study, plotting its effect size against its precision.
Figure 4. Funnel plot analysis of publication bias in SIBO prevalence among PPI-treated patients. Each point on the funnel plot represents an individual study, plotting its effect size against its precision.
Jcm 14 04702 g004
Figure 5. Meta-regression of SIBO prevalence by PPI treatment duration.
Figure 5. Meta-regression of SIBO prevalence by PPI treatment duration.
Jcm 14 04702 g005
Table 1. Characteristics of selected studies.
Table 1. Characteristics of selected studies.
Study, YearCountryStudy DesignSIBO Diagnostic MethodMean AgePPI-Treated PatientsPeriod of PPI TreatmentControl PatientsNOS
Fried et al., 1994 [11]SwitzerlandCase–controlAspirate culture50.6252156
Gough et al., 1995 [12]UKCohortLHBT55101n/d7
Lewis et al., 1996 [13]South AfricaCohortAspirate culture43.1201n/d6
Thorens et al., 1996 [14]SwitzerlandCase–controlAspirate culture42191186
Hutchinson et al., 1997 [15]UKCase–controlGHBT78.6221227
Pereira et al., 1998 [16]UKCase–controlAspirate culture768267
Law et al., 2009 [17]USACase–controlLHBT43.7106n/d4498
Lombardo et al., 2010 [18]ItalyCase–controlGHBT37.72003506
Choung et al., 2011 [19]USACase–controlAspirate culture53249n/d4216
Compare et al., 2011 [20]ItalyCohortGHBT36423n/d7
Costa et al., 2012 [21]BrazilCase–controlLHBT38.8 ± 12.6212n/d118
Ratuapli et al., 2012 [22]USACase–controlGHBT60.9566n/d6257
Jacobs et al., 2013 [23]USACase–controlAspirate culture4365n/d858
Loginov et al., 2014 [24]RussiaCohortHBT58 ± 2.1603n/d7
Senderovky et al., 2014 [25]ArgentinaCohortLHBT57.5225n/dn/d7
Franco et al., 2015 [26]USACohortAspirate culture523843n/d8
Fujiwara et al., 2015 [27]JapanCohortLHBTn/d50n/dn/d6
Schatz et al., 2015 [28]USACohortXBT57.4394n/dn/d6
Enko et al., 2016 [29]AustriaCase–controlGHBT44713387
Giamarellos et al., 2016 [30]GreeceCase–controlAspirate culture64.418427138
Revaiah et al., 2018 [31]IndiaCase–controlLHBT41.71 ± 13.17 912566
Sieczkowska et al., 2018 [32]PolandCase–controlGHBTn/d603626
Zhang et al., 2020 [33]ChinaCase–controlLHBTn/d140n/d607
Chuah et al., 2022 [34]MalaysiaCase–controlGHBT48 ± 16 years422589
Weitsman et al., 2022 [35]USACase–control16S rRNA Sequencing61.5 ± 13.659n/d1187
Bastiani et al., 2023 [36]ItalyCase–controlLHBTn/d12531008
Duran-Rosas et al., 2024 [37]MexicoCohortGHBT25.18 ± 6.5381n/d7
Lim et al., 2024 [38]South KoreaCohortGHBT71.83 ± 8.80792n/d8
Maev et al., 2025 [39]RussiaCohortLHBT38.7 ± 8.93362n/d8
Table 2. Subgroup analysis of SIBO risk and prevalence among PPI users stratified by diagnostic method and study quality.
Table 2. Subgroup analysis of SIBO risk and prevalence among PPI users stratified by diagnostic method and study quality.
Subgroup AnalysisPooled OR (95% CI)Heterogeneity I2 (%)Pooled Prevalence (95% CI)Heterogeneity I2 (%)p
SIBO diagnostic method
Aspirate culture1.727 (1.304–2.287)46.8735.877% (19.503–54.158)95.720.0025
GHBT2.508 (0.995–6.323)87.4233.541% (21.561–46.711).93.780.0451
LHBT1.939 (0.811–4.634)81.5139.634% (27.027–52.984)94.880.0055
Overall2.143 (1.446–3.175)77.6136.839% (29.703–44.277)94.93<0.0001
Study quality (NOS scores)
6–72.962 (1.717–5.112)79.1238.417% (28.714–48.609)95.56<0.0001
8–91.211 (0.736–1.992)64.1133.403% (23.192–44.470)93.58<0.0001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Khurmatullina, A.R.; Andreev, D.N.; Kucheryavyy, Y.A.; Sokolov, F.S.; Beliy, P.A.; Zaborovskiy, A.V.; Maev, I.V. The Duration of Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy and the Risk of Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 4702. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14134702

AMA Style

Khurmatullina AR, Andreev DN, Kucheryavyy YA, Sokolov FS, Beliy PA, Zaborovskiy AV, Maev IV. The Duration of Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy and the Risk of Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2025; 14(13):4702. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14134702

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khurmatullina, Alsu R., Dmitrii N. Andreev, Yury A. Kucheryavyy, Filipp S. Sokolov, Petr A. Beliy, Andrey V. Zaborovskiy, and Igor V. Maev. 2025. "The Duration of Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy and the Risk of Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Journal of Clinical Medicine 14, no. 13: 4702. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14134702

APA Style

Khurmatullina, A. R., Andreev, D. N., Kucheryavyy, Y. A., Sokolov, F. S., Beliy, P. A., Zaborovskiy, A. V., & Maev, I. V. (2025). The Duration of Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy and the Risk of Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 14(13), 4702. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14134702

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop