A Comparison between 10-day and 12-day Concomitant Regimens for <i>Helicobacter Pylori</i> Eradication: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection is one of the most common bacterial infections worldwide, which is associated with peptic ulcer disease and gastric cancer. In this study, we compared the efficacy of 10-day versus 12-day concomitant therapy as the first-line treatment for H. pylori eradication in Iran. METHODS 218 patients with peptic ulcer disease and naïve H. pylori infection, were randomly divided into two groups to receive either 10-day or 12-day concomitant regimens, composed of pantoprazole 40 mg, amoxicillin 1000 mg, clarithromycin 500 mg, and metronidazole 500 mg, all given twice daily. Eight weeks after treatment, H. pylori eradication was assessed by 14C- urea breath test. The trial was registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (code: IRCT20170521034070N2). RESULTS 212 patients completed the study. According to the intention to treat analysis, the eradication rates were 83.6% (95% CI: 76.6-90.5) and 88.8% (95% CI: 82.8-94.7) in 10-day and 12-day concomitant therapy groups, respectively (p = 0.24). Per-protocol eradication rates were 85.9% (95% CI: 79.3–92.4) and 92.6% (95% CI: 87.6–97.5), respectively (p = 0.19). The rates of severe side effects were not statistically different between the two groups (3.6% vs. 8.1%; p = 0.428). CONCLUSION 12-day concomitant therapy could achieve ideal eradication rates by both intention to treat and perprotocol analyses. In order to reduce the cost of drugs and the rate of adverse effects of therapy, among 10-day and 12day regimens, 12-day concomitant therapy seems to be a good alternative to 14-day concomitant therapy that has been suggested by international guidelines.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".