Cited by 176Helicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studiesHepatitis C virus researchGastrointestinal motility and disorders

Comparative effectiveness and tolerance of treatments for Helicobacter pylori : systematic review and network meta-analysis

Open access
Li, Bao-Zhu, Threapleton, Diane Erin, Wang, Ji-Yao, Xu, Jian-Ming, Yuan, Jin-Qiu, Zhang, Chao, Li, Peng, Ye, Qian-Ling +3 more·2015·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the most efficacious treatment for eradication of Helicobacter pylori with the lowest likelihood of some common adverse events among pre-recommended and newer treatment regimens. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase without language or date restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: Full text reports of randomised controlled trials that compared different eradication treatments for H pylori among adults. RESULTS: Of the 15,565 studies identified, 143 were eligible and included. Data on 14 kinds of treatments were available. Of 91 possible comparisons for the efficacy outcome, 34 were compared directly and the following treatments performed better: seven days of concomitant treatment (proton pump inhibitor and three kinds of antibiotics administered together), 10 or 14 days of concomitant treatment, 10 or 14 days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment (standard triple treatment which is probiotic supplemented), 10 or 14 days of levofloxacin based triple treatment (proton pump inhibitor, levofloxacin, and antibiotic administered together), 14 days of hybrid treatment (proton pump inhibitor and amoxicillin used for seven days, followed by a proton pump inhibitor, amoxicillin, clarithromycin, and 5-nitroimidazole for another seven days), and 10 or 14 days of sequential treatment (five or seven days of a proton pump inhibitor plus amoxicillin, followed by five or seven additional days of a proton pump inhibitor plus clarithromycin and 5-nitroimidazole or amoxicillin). In terms of tolerance, all treatments were considered tolerable, but seven days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment and seven days of levofloxacin based triple treatment ranked best in terms of the proportion of adverse events reported. CONCLUSION: Comparison of different eradication treatments for H pylori showed that concomitant treatments, 10 or 14 days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment, 10 or 14 days of levofloxacin based triple treatment, 14 days of hybrid treatment, and 10 or 14 days of sequential treatment might be better alternatives for the eradication of H pylori.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.h4052

Cites

64 of 64 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A meta-analysis of clinical trials showed that probiotics could be as effective as pharmacological approaches for H. pylori treatment and were the best treatment in terms of patient tolerance.

    “Li and coworkers (117) published a meta-analysis that compiled the clinical trial studies involving H. pylori treatment, and they showed that the use of probiotics could be as effective as pharmacological approaches. In addition, probiotics were revealed in the same analysis as the best treatment in terms of tolerance for the patient.”

    From Bifidobacteria and Their Health-Promoting Effects (2017) · cites this paper as [117]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, B.-Z., Threapleton, D. E., Wang, J.-Y., Xu, J.-M., Yuan, J.-Q., Zhang, C., Li, P., Ye, Q.-L., Guo, B., Mao, C., & Ye, D.-Q.
Affiliations
  • Anhui Medical University (CN)
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University (CN)
  • Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University (CN)
Corresponding author
Ye, Dong-Qing
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-08-19
Volume
351
Pages
h4052
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2142452897
Cited by
176
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 5
FWCI
4.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Helicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Hepatitis C virus research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
Keywords
Helicobacter pylori, eradication therapy, comparative effectiveness, treatment tolerance, adverse events, probiotic supplementation, levofloxacin, triple therapy, concomitant therapy, hybrid therapy, sequential therapy, clarithromycin, amoxicillin, proton pump inhibitors, 5-nitroimidazoles
MeSH terms
Amoxicillin, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Drug Therapy, Combination, Humans, Metronidazole, Nitroimidazoles, Helicobacter pylori, Helicobacter Infections, Clarithromycin, Probiotics, Proton Pump Inhibitors, Levofloxacin

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