Double‐Blind Comparison of Absorbable Colloidal Bismuth Subcitrate and Nonabsorbable Bismuth Subnitrate in the Eradication of <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> and the Relief of Nonulcer Dyspepsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bismuth is widely used for the eradication of H. pylori, especially in developing countries, although there are concerns over its neurotoxicity. Whether bismuth has to be absorbed in humans to act against H. pylori is not known. In this study, we compared "absorbable" (colloidal bismuth subcitrate) and "nonabsorbable" (bismuth subnitrate) bismuth as part of triple therapy in the eradication of H. pylori. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was carried out with 120 H. pylori-positive patients with nonulcer dyspepsia. Group CBS + Ab (n = 35) received colloidal bismuth subcitrate (one tablet qds), amoxicillin (500 mg qds), and metronidazole (400 mg tds). Group BSN + Ab (n = 35) received bismuth subnitrate (two tablets tds) and the same antibiotics. Group Ab (n = 35) received placebo bismuth (two tablets tds) and the antibiotics. Group BSN (n = 15) received bismuth subnitrate (two tablets tds) and placebo antibiotics. Bismuth was taken for 4 weeks and the antibiotics for the first 2 weeks. H. pylori eradication, side effects, compliance, pre- and post-treatment symptom scores, and bismuth absorption were assessed. RESULTS: H. pylori eradication was 69%, 83%, 31%, and 0% in CBS + Ab, BSN + Ab, Ab, and BSN, respectively. Side effects, compliance, and symptom relief were similar in all groups, but blood bismuth levels were significantly greater in CBS + Ab than the other three groups. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of bismuth-based therapies as part of triple therapy in the eradication of H. pylori is unrelated to absorption. Hence, the use of effective but poorly absorbed bismuth preparations should be encouraged for bismuth-based eradication therapies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".