Prokinetics for Functional Dyspepsia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Prokinetics are recommended for the treatment of functional dyspepsia (FD) but systematic reviews give conflicting results on the efficacy of these agents. We have therefore conducted an updated systematic review to support the 2017 joint ACG/CAG dyspepsia guidelines. METHODS: Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL, were searched until September 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing either prokinetics and placebo or two types of prokinetics to improve FD symptoms. The primary outcome was absence or improvement of dyspeptic symptoms at the end of treatment. Double-blind eligibility assessment and data extraction was performed. Pooled risk ratios of symptoms persisting or adverse events occurring, and standardized mean difference of quality-of-life (QoL) scores with 95% CI, using a random effects model, were calculated. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: The search identified 1388 citations; 38 studies in 35 papers were included. Of these, 29 trials comparing prokinetics with placebo were found. There was a statistically significant effect of prokinetic treatment in reducing global symptoms of FD (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.89; I2 91%; NNT 7), regardless of FD subtype or ethnicity. When comparing two types of prokinetic, the most commonly used comparator was domperidone. There was no difference in reducing global symptoms (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07). QoL was not improved with prokinetic treatment. The adverse events with individual prokinetics were not different from placebo, except for cisapride. The GRADE assessment rated the quality of the evidence in each outcome as very low. CONCLUSIONS: From the current evidence, prokinetics may be effective for the treatment in all subtypes of FD, with very low quality of evidence. There was no difference between prokinetics for dyspeptic symptom improvement. High-quality RCTs with large sample sizes of FD patients are needed to verify the efficacy of prokinetics.
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 | 0.031 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".