H<sub>2</sub>‐receptor antagonists in the treatment of functional (nonulcer) dyspepsia: a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To perform a meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy of H2-receptor antagonists in functional (nonulcer) dyspepsia. SELECTION OF STUDIES: A Medline search was used to identify placebo controlled randomized clinical trials, using the subject headings dyspepsia and H2-receptor antagonist. OUTCOME MEASURES: Global assessment by the patient of dyspepsia symptoms, improvement of epigastric pain and complete relief of epigastric pain. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria, 15 of which reported the active drug to be superior to placebo. Many studies suffered from suboptimal study design. The odds ratio in favour of active drug was 1.48 (95% confidence interval: 0.9-2.3) for global assessment of dyspepsia symptoms, 2.3 (95% CI: 1.6-3.3) for improvement of epigastric pain, and 1.8 (95% CI: 1.2-2.8) for complete relief of epigastric pain. CONCLUSION: There is some evidence that H2-receptor antagonists are superior to placebo in functional dyspepsia, but larger studies evaluating higher doses of H2-receptor antagonists and of longer duration are necessary to determine the exact effect size.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".