Efficacy of cisapride and domperidone in functional (nonulcer) dyspepsia: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of prokinetic agents in functional (nonulcer) dyspepsia has been questioned based on recent trial results. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of cisapride and domperidone in functional dyspepsia. METHODS: Computer and manual searching was used to identify placebo-controlled studies that included >20 patients. The statistical analysis focused on: global assessment by the investigator, epigastric pain, early satiety, abdominal distension and nausea (all rated on four-point scales). Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) in favor of treatment. Regression analysis was performed to evaluate possible effect modifiers. The relationship between improvement in gastric emptying and symptoms was also evaluated. RESULTS: For cisapride, 17 studies met the inclusion criteria, but varying numbers of studies had to be used for the different outcome measures. For all outcome measures, there was a statiscally significant benefit in favor of cisapride: global assessment of improvement by the investigator or patient (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.5-5.8), epigastric pain (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05-0.7), early satiety (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.9-0.4), abdominal distension (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.1-0.7), and nausea (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.1-0.5). Age of patient, year of publication, and country where study was performed had only small modifying effects. There were insufficient data to determine whether there is a relationship between improvement in gastric emptying and response to treatment. For domperidone, four of eight studies could be used for the analysis of global assessment of improvement by the investigator. This showed an OR of 7.0 (95% CI 3.6-16) in favor of domperidone. CONCLUSIONS: Both cisapride and domperidone seem to be efficacious in functional dyspepsia, although this conclusion is largely based on global assessment by the investigator, which may not be an optimal outcome measure.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".