Empirical therapy versus tailored therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The global decline in the efficacy of empirical treatment for Helicobacter pylori eradication driven largely by rising antibiotic resistance has prompted increasing interest in tailored therapeutic approaches. Tailored therapy, guided by antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST), offers a theoretically superior strategy by enabling selection of effective, resistance-informed regimens. However, the comparative effectiveness of tailored versus empirical therapy remains uncertain across different clinical contexts and geographic regions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL was performed to identify studies published inception to August 2025 that directly compared empirical and AST-guided tailored therapy for H. pylori eradication. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and observational comparative studies reporting intention-to-treat or per-protocol eradication rates. Study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessments (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) were performed independently by two reviewers. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies comprising approximately 14,940 patients were included. Tailored therapy demonstrated higher eradication rates in 85% of first-line studies, with PCR-guided regimens achieving the most consistent success. In rescue settings, tailored therapy showed variable outcomes, with several studies reporting comparable efficacy to empirical quadruple therapy. Overall, tailored regimens were more effective in high-resistance settings and when guided by timely and accurate AST. CONCLUSION: The summarized evidence suggests that tailored therapy, guided by antimicrobial susceptibility testing, often achieves higher H. pylori eradication rates than empirical therapy, especially as a first-line approach. However, the heterogeneity in study design and outcomes necessitates careful consideration when applying these findings. Tailored therapy appears to be a valuable strategy to optimize H. pylori eradication, potentially combating rising antibiotic resistance.
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 | 0.015 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".