Meta-analysis of the efficacy of probiotics in<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>eradication therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the role of probiotics in the standard triple Helicobacter pylori therapy. METHODS: In this meta-analysis, we investigated the efficacy of probiotics in a standard triple H. pylori therapy in adults. Searches were mainly conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Fourteen studies met our criteria, and the quality of these studies was assessed using the Jadad scale. We used STATA version 12.0 to extract data and to calculate the odds ratios (ORs), which are presented with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The data are presented as forest plots. RESULTS: The pooled ORs for the eradication rates calculated by intention-to-treat analysis and per-protocol analysis in the probiotic group vs the control group were 1.67 (95%CI: 1.38-2.02) and 1.68 (95%CI: 1.35-2.08), respectively, using the fixed-effects model. The sensitivity of the Asian studies was greater than that of the Caucasian studies (Asian: OR = 1.78, 95%CI: 1.40-2.26; Caucasian: OR = 1.48, 95%CI: 1.06-2.05). The pooled OR for the incidence of total adverse effects was significantly lower in the probiotic group (OR = 0.49, 95%CI: 0.26-0.94), using the random effects model, with significant heterogeneity (I (2) = 85.7%). The incidence of diarrhea was significantly reduced in the probiotic group (OR = 0.21, 95%CI: 0.06-0.74), whereas the incidence of taste disorders, metallic taste, vomiting, nausea, and epigastric pain did not differ significantly between the probiotic group and the control group. CONCLUSION: Supplementary probiotic preparations during standard triple H. pylori therapy may improve the eradication rate, particularly in Asian patients, and the incidence of total adverse effects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.063 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".