Quadruple Therapy with Medications Containing Either Rufloxacin or Furazolidone as a Rescue regimen in the Treatment of Helicobacter pylori-Infected Dyspepsia Patients: A Randomized Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The eradication rates of first-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection are not satisfactory. Various regimens including quadruple therapies have been recommended as rescue therapies after the first H. pylori eradication attempt failed. AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety between quadruple therapies with medications containing either rufloxacin or levofloxacin in the Chinese nonulcer dyspepsia patients infected with H. pylori. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-eight patients after an unsuccessful 10-day standard triple therapy were enrolled in this study. They were randomized to receive a 14-day quadruple therapy with pantoprazole, bismuth citrate, and furazolidone in combination with either rufloxacin (Group Ruf, n=70) or levofloxacin (Group Lev, n=68). The H. pylori eradication was evaluated by (13) C-urea breath test 4 and 12 weeks after therapy was completed. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-seven patients (65 in Group Ruf and 62 in Group Lev) completed the study. The H. pylori eradication rates in Group Ruf were 81.4% for intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and 87.7% for per-protocol (PP) analysis. The rates were statistically significantly higher than those in Group Lev (66.2% and 72.6%) (p<0.05). There were no severe adverse effects found in these two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Fourteen-day quadruple therapy with a combination of proton-pump inhibitor, bismuth citrate, furazolidone, and rufloxacin is considered an effective and safe rescue therapy for H. pylori eradication after failure of standard triple treatment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".