MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Eradication therapy for peptic ulcer disease in Helicobacter pylori positive patients

2006· review· en· W4245547778 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexander C. Ford, Brendan Delaney, David Forman, Paul Moayyedi

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMedical Research CouncilMcMaster UniversityAstraZeneca
KeywordsMedicineHelicobacter pyloriInternal medicinePlaceboAdverse effectClinical trialGastroenterologyDiseasePepticPeptic ulcerAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Peptic ulcer disease is the cause for dyspepsia in about 10% of patients. 95% of duodenal and 70% of gastric ulcers are associated with Helicobacter pylori. Eradication of H pylori reduces the relapse rate of ulcers but the magnitude of this effect is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The primary outcomes were the proportion of peptic ulcers healed initially and proportion of patients free from relapse following successful healing. Eradication therapy was compared to placebo or pharmacological therapies in H. pylori positive patients. Secondary aims included symptom relief and adverse effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches were conducted on the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials - CENTRAL (which includes the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group Trials Register) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 3 2002) MEDLINE (1966 to July 2002) and EMBASE (1980 to July 2002). Reference lists from trials selected by electronic searching were handsearched to identify further relevant trials. Published abstracts from conference proceedings from the United European Gastroenterology Week (published in Gut) and Digestive Disease Week (published in Gastroenterology) were handsearched. The search was updated in September 2003, November 2004 and November 2005. Members of the Cochrane UGPD Group, and experts in the field were contacted and asked to provide details of outstanding clinical trials and any relevant unpublished materials SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of short and long-term treatment of peptic ulcer disease in H. pylori positive adults were analysed. Patients received at least one week of H pylori eradication compared with ulcer healing drug, placebo or not treatment. Trials were included if they reported assessment from 2 weeks onwards. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were collected on ulcer healing, recurrence, relief of symptoms and adverse effects. MAIN RESULTS: 63 trials were eligible. Data extraction was not possible in 7 trials, and 56 trials were included. In duodenal ulcer healing, eradication therapy was superior to ulcer healing drug (UHD) (34 trials, 3910 patients, relative risk [RR] of ulcer persisting = 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.58, 0.76) and no treatment (2 trials, 207 patients, RR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.26, 0.53). In gastric ulcer healing, no significant differences were detected between eradication therapy and UHD (14 trials, 1572 patients, RR = 1.25; 95% CI = 0.88, 1.76). In preventing duodenal ulcer recurrence no significant differences were detected between eradication therapy and maintenance therapy with UHD (4 trials, 319 patients, relative risk [RR] of ulcer recurring = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.42, 1.25), but eradication therapy was superior to no treatment (27 trials 2509 patients, RR = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.15, 0.26). In preventing gastric ulcer recurrence, eradication therapy was superior to no treatment (11 trials, 1104 patients, RR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.20, 0.42). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A 1 to 2 weeks course of H. pylori eradication therapy is an effective treatment for H. pylori positive peptic ulcer disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations124
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207