Cited by 196Gastrointestinal motility and disordersGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studies

Proton pump inhibitors for functional dyspepsia

Open access
Pinto-Sanchez, Maria Ines, Yuan, Yuhong, Hassan, Ahmed, Bercik, Premysl, Moayyedi, Paul·2017·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Functional dyspepsia (FD or non-ulcer dyspepsia) is defined as continuous or frequently recurring epigastric pain or discomfort for which no organic cause can be found. Acid suppressive therapy, including proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), has been proposed as a therapeutic option in FD, but its efficacy remains controversial. While PPIs are generally considered safe and well tolerated, they have been associated with adverse events, especially in the long term. For this reason, decisions on whether to initiate or continue PPI therapy should be made based on an appropriate clinical indication. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate whether PPI therapy provides symptomatic relief in FD. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in the improvement of global symptoms of dyspepsia and quality of life compared to placebo, H2 receptor antagonists or prokinetics, in people with functional dyspepsia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched in the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Library (to May 2017), MEDLINE (OvidSP; to May 2017), Embase (OvidSP; to May 2017), and SIGLE grey literature (up to May 2017) and clinical trial registries; we handsearched abstracts from conferences up to May 2017. We screened non-systematic reviews, systematic reviews and guidelines to identify any additional trials. We contacted trialists to obtain missing information. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any PPI with placebo, H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) or prokinetics for the treatment of FD of at least two weeks' duration. Participants were adults (aged 16 years or greater) with an adequate diagnosis of FD (any validated criteria such as Rome I, II, III or Lancet Working Group). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and trial quality, and extracted data. We collected data on dyspeptic symptoms, quality of life and number of overall adverse events. Specific adverse events were beyond the scope of this review. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 25 RCTs from 27 papers (with 8453 participants) studying the effect of PPIs versus placebo, H2RAs or prokinetics for improvement of global symptoms of dyspepsia and quality of life in people with FD. Low-dose PPIs had similar efficacy as standard-dose PPIs, therefore we combined these subgroups for the analysis. PPI was more effective than placebo at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms in people with FD (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.94; participants = 6172; studies = 18; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 11; moderate quality evidence). PPIs may have little or no effect compared with H2RAs (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.04; participants = 740; studies = 2; low quality evidence), and may be slightly more effective than prokinetics (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99; participants = 1033; studies = 5; NNTB 16; low quality evidence) at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms in people with FD. PPIs plus prokinetics have probably little or no effect compared with PPIs alone at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.08; participants = 407; studies = 2; moderate quality evidence).There was no difference when subgrouped by Helicobacter pylori status, country of origin, or presence of reflux or Rome III subtypes. There were no differences in the number of adverse events observed between PPIs and any of the other treatments. There were fewer adverse events in the combination of PPI plus prokinetics compared to prokinetics alone (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93; participants = 407; studies = 2; moderate quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that PPIs are effective for the treatment of FD, independent of the dose and duration of treatment compared with placebo. PPIs may be slightly more effective than prokinetics for the treatment of FD; however, the evidence is scarce. The trials evaluating PPIs versus prokinetics are difficult to interpret as they are at risk of bias. Although the effect of these drugs seems to be small, the drugs are well tolerated.

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.cd011194.pub3

Cites

111 of 111 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cited works that were retracted

Works this paper cites that were later retracted, from the retraction notices publishers deposit. Major when the notice came out before this paper was published.

  • Cites a retracted work: 10.1002/14651858.cd001960

    Major

    The cited work was retracted on 2011-02-16 (notice 10.1002/14651858.cd001960.pub4), before this paper was published (2017-11-21). Its authors could have known.

    Cited work 10.1002/14651858.cd001960 · retracted 2011-02-16 · notice 10.1002/14651858.cd001960.pub4 · this paper published 2017-11-21

  • Cites a retracted work: 10.1002/14651858.cd001960.pub3

    Major

    The cited work was retracted on 2011-02-16 (notice 10.1002/14651858.cd001960.pub4), before this paper was published (2017-11-21). Its authors could have known.

    Cited work 10.1002/14651858.cd001960.pub3 · retracted 2011-02-16 · notice 10.1002/14651858.cd001960.pub4 · this paper published 2017-11-21

  • Cites a retracted work: 10.1002/14651858.cd001960.pub4

    Info

    The cited work was retracted; the date of the notice is not on record.

    Cited work 10.1002/14651858.cd001960.pub4 · retraction date not known · this paper published 2017-11-21

3 of 3

Cites

3 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 112 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Hengels, 1998, Therapeutic efficacy of 15mg lansoprazole mane in 269 patients suffering from non-ulcer dyspepsia (NUD): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind study, Gut, 43 (Suppl 2), A89
  2. Talley, 1998, Efficacy of omeprazole in functional dyspepsia: double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (the BOND and OPERA studies), Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 12, 1055, 10.1046/j.1365-2036.1998.00410.x · DOI
  3. Cheung, 2013, The effect of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) on plasma 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) levels in patients with functional dyspepsia (FD): a double-blind randomized control trial, Gastroenterology, 144, S679
  4. Rui, 2015, Randomized clinical study on functional dyspepsia treatment with herbal preparation puyuanhewei and therapeutic response evaluation by endomicroscopy, Gastroenterology, 148, S891
  5. Bolling-Sternevald, 2003, Is it possible to predict treatment response to a proton pump inhibitor in functional dyspepsia?, Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 18, 117, 10.1046/j.1365-2036.2003.01651.x · DOI
  6. Deeks JJ Higgins JPT Alman DG Cochrane Statistics Methods Group Chapter 9.4.5.2: Meta-analysis of change scores. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011 Available from handbook.cochrane.org
  7. Drossman, 1999, Rome II: a multinational consensus document on functional gastrointestinal disorders - functional bowel disorders and functional abdominal pain, Gut, 45, ii
  8. Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager 5 (RevMan) 2014

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pinto-Sanchez, M. I., Yuan, Y., Hassan, A., Bercik, P., & Moayyedi, P.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University; Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology; Hamilton ON Canada
  • McMaster University (CA)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-11-21
Volume
2018
Issue
3
Pages
CD011194-CD011194
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W1955612182
Cited by
195
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 7 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Società Italiana di Farmacologia
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastroesophageal reflux and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Helicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studies
Keywords
functional dyspepsia, proton pump inhibitors, acid suppression, H2 receptor antagonists, prokinetic agents, epigastric pain, quality of life, adverse events, treatment efficacy, placebo comparison, Rome criteria
MeSH terms
Dyspepsia, Histamine H2 Antagonists, Humans, Quality of Life, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Proton Pump Inhibitors

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