A Randomized Trial Comparing Seven-Day Ranitidine Bismuth Citrate and Clarithromycin Dual Therapy to Seven-Day Omeprazole, Clarithromycin and Amoxicillin Triple Therapy for the Eradication of<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess Helicobacter pylori eradication after one week dual ranitidine bismuth citrate-clarithromycin (RBC-C) or triple omeprazole, clarithromycin and amoxicillin (OCA) therapy. METHODS: In this multicentre Canadian trial, H pylori-positive patients with functional dyspepsia or inactive peptic ulcer disease were randomized to open-label treatment with RBC-C (ranitidine bismuth citrate 400 mg plus clarithromycin 500 mg) or OCA (omezaprole 20 mg, clarithromycin 500 mg and amoxicillin 1000 mg), given twice a day for seven days. Treatment allocation was randomly assigned. H pylori infection was confirmed by positive 13C-urea breath test (13C-UBT). H pylori status was reassessed by UBT at least four and 12 weeks after treatment (negative: d13CO2 below 3.5 per mil). Intention-to-treat (ITT) eradication rates were determined for all patients with confirmed H pylori infection. Per protocol (PP) rate was determined for all patients treated with at least two evaluable follow-up visits. RESULTS: Three hundred five patients were included in the ITT and 222 in the PP analysis. The ITT eradication rates were 66% for RBC-C and 78% for OCA. The PP success rates were 84% for RBC-C and 96% for OCA. The difference for both ITT 12% (95% CI 2 to 22) and PP 12% (95% CI 4 to 19) were statistically significant, P=0.030 and P=0.007, respectively. Treatment was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The eradication rate for the seven-day dual RBC-C regimen was lower than that for OCA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".