Evidence Hub

Meta-analysis of determining the pathogen eradicating efficacy of various therapeutic regimens in Helicobacter pylori infection

Dobrucali A, Canbakan B, Canbakan M, Bagatur N, Uzunismail H, Eralp Y, Akün E, Göksel S et al.

Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 1998

486 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Helicobacter pylori is the most common bacterial pathogen world-wide and has been identified in all countries. As long-term infection with H. pylori could potentially lead to duodenal or gastric ulcer disease, asymptomatic chronic gastritis, chronic dyspepsia, or gastric malignancy, including both adenocarcinoma and B-cell lymphoma, a large number of different treatment regimens aimed at eradicating H. pylori has been evaluated and reported. Despite numerous H. pylori treatment studies the optimum regimen for its eradication remains unclear. A treatment regimen, which is effective, safe and inexpensive could be used widespread and reduce the risks of the long-term complications of infection. In this study we compared the efficacy, side effects and cost-effectiveness of 12 different therapy regimens for H. pylori eradication by using meta-analysis methodology. 486 patients (256 male, 230 female; mean age 40.8 years) with H. pylori associated duodenal ulcer (n = 140), gastritis (n = 254), gastroduodenitis (n = 92) were treated with 12 different therapy-regimens. Endoscopy was performed at baseline and 6 weeks after discontinuation of eradication therapy. H. pylori status was assessed by urease test and histology. The therapy with a H2-receptor antagonist is less effective than the triple therapies with omeprazole or lansoprazole. Bismuth-based triple therapies have a mean overall eradication rate of 68%, but are limited by frequent side effects causing poor drug compliance.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 486 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free