Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 371

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Eradication of Helicobacter pylori for non-ulcer dyspepsia

Moayyedi, P, Soo, S, Deeks, J, Delaney, B, Harris, A, Innes, M, Oakes, R, Wilson, S, Roalfe, A, Bennett, C, Forman, D·2003·The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) is the main cause of peptic ulcer disease. The role of H pylori in non-ulcer dyspepsia is less clear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of H pylori eradication on dyspepsia symptoms in patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified through electronic searches of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and SIGLE, using appropriate subject headings and keywords, searching bibliographies of retrieved articles, and through contacts with experts in the fields of dyspepsia and with pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All parallel group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing drugs to eradicate H pylori with placebo or other drugs known not to eradicate H pylori for patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were collected on individual and global dyspeptic symptom scores, quality of life measures and adverse effects. Dyspepsia outcomes were dichotomised into minimal/resolved versus same/worse symptoms. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty one randomised controlled trials were included in the systematic review. Eighteen trials compared antisecretory dual or triple therapy with placebo antibiotics +/- antisecretory therapy, and evaluated dyspepsia at 3-12 months. Seventeen of these trials gave results as dichotomous outcomes evaluating 3566 patients and there was no significant heterogeneity between the studies. There was a 10% relative risk reduction in the H pylori eradication group (95% CI = 6% to 14%) compared to placebo. The number needed to treat to cure one case of dyspepsia = 14 (95% CI = 10 to 25). A further three trials compared Bismuth based H pylori eradication with an alternative pharmacological agent. These trials were smaller and had a shorter follow-up but suggested H pylori eradication was more effective than either H2 receptor antagonists or sucralfate in treating non-ulcer dyspepsia. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: H pylori eradication therapy has a small but statistically significant effect in H pylori positive non-ulcer dyspepsia. An economic model suggests this modest benefit may still be cost-effective but more research is needed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd002096This paper is marked retracted.

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 371

Metadata

Authors
Moayyedi, P., Soo, S., Deeks, J., Delaney, B., Harris, A., Innes, M., Oakes, R., Wilson, S., Roalfe, A., Bennett, C., & Forman, D.
Venue
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Published
2003-01-20
Issue
1
Pages
CD002096-CD002096
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W1927968874
Cited by
371
References
0
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Status
Retracted
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Eradication of Helicobacter pylori for non-ulcer dyspepsia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd002096
The paper
Moayyedi, P., Soo, S., Deeks, J., Delaney, B., Harris, A., Innes, M., Oakes, R., Wilson, S., Roalfe, A., Bennett, C., & Forman, D. (2003). Eradication of Helicobacter pylori for non-ulcer dyspepsia. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd002096

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.