Has education about <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> infection been effective? Worldwide survey of primary care physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Confusion exists among physicians about the management of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection. We aimed to survey primary care physicians' (PCP) knowledge and management of H. pylori-related diseases. METHODS: Four-hundred and seventy randomly selected PCP from 29 countries were surveyed. RESULTS: The pathological role of H. pylori was of less concern in South Africa than the rest of the world (63% compared to 93%). The causal relationship between H. pylori and gastric and duodenal ulcers and gastric cancer was accepted by 81%, 85%, and 61% of respondents, respectively. Endoscopy was used by 62% of respondents to diagnose the infection. Histology was used by 61% of European participants for diagnosis compared to 3% in North American and 0% in South Africa. Proton-pump inhibitor (PPI)-based triple therapies were prescribed by 89% of respondents. Physicians in Oceania (35%) and South Africa (45%) were less concerned about bacterial resistance than respondents elsewhere. Sixty-three percent of respondents considered H. pylori relevant to dyspepsia management and 66% treated new dyspepsia empirically, compared to 18% who chose endoscopic diagnosis and 13% who used a H. pylori test and treat strategy. For persistent or recurrent infection, 56% of South African physicians treated with another regimen compared to 33% of PCP from elsewhere. Ninety-one percent of European participants agreed that current information on H. pylori management is helpful and 68% of PCP from other regions considered the information to be adequate. CONCLUSIONS: Current guidelines on the management of H. pylori infection have been useful for PCP worldwide. Contrasting answers to some questions may reflect differences in health care systems, epidemiology and approaches to the management of H. pylori infection between countries.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".