Effectiveness of eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication depends on the treatment protocol. This study aimed to investigate the H. pylori eradication effectiveness in Africa using the best available evidence from databases. Methods PubMed, Google Scholar, Hinari, Scopus, and the directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) were searched. The quality of each included study was assessed using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Intervention (ROBINS-I) for observational studies. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using I2 test statistics based on the random effect model. Stata version 13 (College Station, Texas 77845 USA) software was employed to compute the pooled eradication rate. Forest plots and tables were used to present the data. Results Twenty-two studies from 9 African countries with a total population of 2,163 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The pooled eradication rate of H. pylori by standard therapy was 79% (95% CI: 75%, 82%), with heterogeneity (I2 = 93.02%). In the subgroup analysis by study design, a higher eradication rate was reported from observational studies (85%, 95% CI: 79%-90%), compared to randomized control trials (77%, 95% CI: 73%-82%); by the duration of therapy, higher eradication rate was reported in 10-days regimen (88%, 95% CI: 84–92), compared to 7-days regimen (66%, 95% CI: 55–77); by country, the highest eradication rate was found in Ethiopia (90%; 95% CI: 87%-93%) and the lowest eradication rate was reported in Ivory Coast (22.3%; 95% CI:15%-29%); by type of H. pylori test, the highest eradication rate was reported when rapid urease test coupled with histology (88%, 95% CI: 77–96), and the lowest eradication rate was reported using histology alone (22.3%; 95% CI:15%-29%). Conclusions Eradication therapy for H. pylori in Africa had eradication rates that could be considered effective even in the lowest reported cases. This study demonstrates the necessity to optimize current H. pylori treatment regimens in each country, taking into account the antibiotic susceptibility of the bacteria.
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 | 0.019 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".