Proton pumps inhibitors in gastroesophageal reflux disease: what is the best regimen? A based evidence review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Gastroesophageal reflux disease is one of the most common gastrointestinal diagnoses. This disorder causes many symptoms and may induce the development of Barret’s esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Proton pump inhibitors are the most used treatment and, usually, are prescribed for once-daily dosing before breakfast. However, many patients describe night-time symptoms, a period when an increase of basal gastric acid secretion occurs. Therefore, this evidence-based review was performed in order to understand which is the best regimen for proton pump inhibitor intake. Methods: The MeSH words ‘proton pump inhibitors’, ‘gastro-oesophageal reflux’, GERD, and pH were chosen to search for synopses, guidelines, meta-analysis, systematic reviews, and original papers, published after 2008 in the databases MEDLINE, National Guideline Clearinghouse, NHS Evidence, Canadian Medical Association, TRIP Database, The Cochrane Library, DARE and Bandolier in English, French, Spanish and Portuguese. A search in the Índex de Revistas Médicas Portuguesas with the words “inibidores das bombas de protões”, “refluxo gastroesofágico”, DRGE, and pH was also performed. The search retrieves 2,546 articles, from those, three were used in this review. Results: Three prospective studies that evaluate the effects of dosage and/or timing of proton pump inhibitors intake in gastric pH were obtained. These studies indicate that, in patients with predominant night-time symptoms, intake before dinner achieves better results than before breakfast. Additionally, doubling the dose reduces symptoms and the time of pH lower than four. Conclusion: Symptom timing and patient compliance are crucial when choosing the therapeutic regimen. The timing of proton pumps inhibitors intake should be associated with the symptom’s timing; C-level of recommendation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".