Meta‐analysis: the efficacy, adverse events, and adherence related to first‐line anti‐<scp>Helicobacter pylori</scp> quadruple therapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Owing to rising drug-resistant Helicobacter pylori infections, currently recommended proton-pump inhibitor-based triple therapies are losing their efficacy, and regimens efficacious in the presence of drug resistance are needed. AIMS: To summarize the efficacy, safety and adherence of first-line quadruple H. pylori therapies in adults. METHODS: Meta-regression models identified factors explaining variation in the efficacy of first-line quadruple therapies from 145 treatment arms. Estimates of average efficacy were calculated within homogeneous groups. RESULTS: Quadruple therapy containing a gastric acid inhibitor, bismuth, metronidazole and tetracycline was enhanced when omeprazole was included, treatment duration lasted 10-14 days, and when therapy took place in the Netherlands, Hong Kong and Australia. Treatment efficacy decreased as the prevalence of metronidazole resistance increased. Even in areas with a high prevalence of metronidazole resistance, this quadruple regimen eradicated more than 85% of H. pylori infections when it contained omeprazole and was given for 10-14 days. Furthermore, in the presence of clarithromycin resistance, this quadruple regimen eradicated 90-100% of H. pylori infections, while the currently recommended triple therapy containing clarithromycin, amoxicillin and a proton-pump inhibitor eradicated only 25-61% (P < 0.001). Adherence and adverse events for quadruple therapy were similar to currently recommended triple therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines should include quadruple therapy with a proton-pump inhibitor, a bismuth compound, metronidazole and tetracycline among recommended first-line anti-H. pylori 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 | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".