Is<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>Being Treated Appropriately? A Study of Inpatients and Outpatients in a Tertiary Care Centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori is causally associated with peptic ulcer disease and gastric cancer. Although effective treatment is available, studies have shown that patients with H pylori are often not well managed. Recently, there has also been increasing awareness of patient safety concerns arising from missed follow-up of abnormal test results. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether inpatients and outpatients diagnosed with H pylori receive appropriate treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who were diagnosed with H pylori by gastric biopsy in London, Ontario between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2004, were identified. The hospital charts of these patients were reviewed. Outpatient office charts, clinic notes, pathology reports and endoscopy reports were also reviewed. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-three patients were diagnosed with H pylori by gastric biopsy in 2004. Of the 193 patients, 143 (74%) were outpatients and 50 (26%) were inpatients. Overall, 89% of patients received treatment for H pylori. Ninety-two per cent of outpatients were treated, while only 60% of inpatients received treatment (P<0.001). Among the inpatients, the pathology report was available in 40% of the cases before the patient was discharged from the hospital. After discharge from the hospital, 30% of inpatients received appropriate treatment and follow-up. There was no significant difference in treatment whether the patient was admitted to a medical or a nonmedical service. CONCLUSION: H pylori is treated relatively poorly in inpatients compared with outpatients. Results of the present study reveal opportunities to improve delivery of care for inpatients on a number of different levels. More research is needed to ensure safety, effectiveness and timeliness in the test result management process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".