%0 Journal Article
%T Enteric Infection-Associated Reactive Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
%A Shafiee D
%A Salpynov Z
%A Gusmanov A
%A Khuanbai Y
%A Mukhatayev Z
%A Kunz J
%J J Clin Med
%V 13
%N 12
%D 2024 Jun 12
%M 38929962
%F 4.964
%R 10.3390/jcm13123433
%X Background. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the proportions of individuals infected with Campylobacter, Escherichia, Salmonella, Shigella, or Yersinia who develop reactive arthritis. Methods. A systematic review was conducted, encompassing English-language articles published before January 2024, sourced from the Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. This review included observational studies that reported the occurrence of reactive arthritis (ReA) among patients with Campylobacter, Escherichia, Salmonella, Shigella, or Yersinia infections. Data extraction was carried out independently by two reviewers. Subsequently, a random-effects meta-analysis was performed, with heterogeneity assessed using the I2 value. Additionally, meta-regression was employed to investigate the potential influence of study-level variables on the observed heterogeneity. Results. A total of 87 studies were identified; 23 reported on ReA development after Campylobacter infection, 7 reported on ReA after Escherichia infection, 30 reported ReA onset after salmonellosis, 14 reported ReA after shigellosis, and 13 reported ReA after Yersinia infection. The proportion of Campylobacter patients who developed ReA was 0.03 (95% CI [0.01, 0.06], I2 = 97.62%); the proportion of Escherichia patients who developed ReA was 0.01 (95% CI [0.00, 0.06], I2 = 92.78%); the proportion of Salmonella patients was 0.04 (95% CI [0.02, 0.08], I2 = 97.67%); the proportion of Shigella patients was 0.01 (95% CI [0.01, 0.03], I2 = 90.64%); and the proportion of Yersinia patients who developed ReA was 0.05 (95% CI [0.02, 0.13], I2 = 96%). Conclusion. A significant proportion of Salmonella, Shigella, and Yersinia cases resulted in ReA. Nonetheless, it is important to interpret the findings cautiously due to the substantial heterogeneity observed between studies.