Rifaximin versus chlortetracycline in the short‐term treatment of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bacterial overgrowth of the small intestine is a condition characterized by nutrient malabsorption due to an excessive number of bacteria in the lumen of the small intestine. Current treatment is based on empirical courses of broad spectrum antibiotics; few controlled data, with respect to the duration and choice of antibiotic drug, exist at present. The recent availability of rifaximin, a non-absorbable rifamycin derivative, highly effective against anaerobic bacteria, prompted us to carry out a randomized, double-blind controlled trial in order to compare its efficacy and tolerability to those of tetracycline, currently considered the first-choice drug. METHODS: In 21 patients affected by small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, fasting, peak and total H2 excretion after ingestion of 50 g glucose and severity of symptoms were evaluated before and after a 7-day course of rifaximin, 1200 mg/day (400 mg t.d.s.), or chlortetracycline, 1 g/day (333 mg t.d.s. ). RESULTS: Fasting, peak and total H2 excretion decreased significantly in the group of patients treated with rifaximin whereas chlortetracycline did not modify these parameters. The H2 breath test normalized in 70% of patients after rifaximin and in 27% of patients after chlortetracycline. The improvement in symptoms was significantly higher in patients treated with rifaximin. CONCLUSIONS: Rifaximin is a promising, easily-handled and safe drug for the short-term treatment of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".