Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 5 Characteristics of systematic reviews comparing PPI and H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) (n = 3)

From: Pharmacological regimens for eradication of Helicobacter pylori: an overview of systematic reviews and network meta-analysis

Author, year, country Last search date Disease H2RAs PPI No. of studies in MA No. of patients in MA Eradication rates by ITT Eradication rates odds ratio (95 % CI) by ITT Quality assessmenta
Gisbert et al. 2003 Spain [40] Jan 2002 HP infection; naïve to treatment; PUD/NUD H2RAs (ranitidine/famotidine/nizatidine)+ PPI (ome/lanso)+ 20 2374 69 % vs. 74 % Triple vs. H 2 RAs 1.31 (1.09-1.58) +
+ two same antibiotics (amoxicillin/clarithromycin/metronidazole/tinidazole) +/− bismuth-
Graham et al. 2003 US [53] 1990–2001 (Published date) HP infection; either naïve or with previous treatment failures H2RAs(nizatidine/famotidine/ranitidine) + PPI (lanso/ome) + 12 1441 78 % vs. 81 % 0.83 (0.63–1.09) 0
+ two same antibiotics (clarithromycin/amoxicillin/metronidazole/tinidazole)
H2RAs(not specified)+ Clarithromycin-containing triple : Clarithromycin + PPI(not specified)+ 6 Not reported 79 % vs. 69 % 1.14 (0.76–1.71)
+ one same antibiotics (not specified)
H2RAs(not specified)+ Clarithromycin NOT-containing triple: PPI(not specified)+ 6 Not reported 78 % vs. 85 % 0.64 (0.45–0.92)
+two same antibiotics (not specified)
Ren et al. 2010 China [41] Apr 2010 HP infection; naïve to treatment Lafutidine-containing: H2RAs(lafutidine)+ Lanso-containing triple: PPI(lanso) + 3 238 78 % vs. 77.5 % 1.03 (0.64–1.66) ++
+ two same antibiotics (clarithromycin + amoxicillin)
  1. HP H.pylori, H2RAs H2 receptor antagonists, PPI proton pump inhibitor, esome esomeprazole, lanso lansoprazole, ome omeprazole, panto pantoprazole, rabe rabeprazole, PUD peptic ulcer disease, NUD non-ulcer dyspepsia, MA meta-analysis, ITT intention to treat, CI confidence interval, RCT randomized controlled trials
  2. a Quality assessment: high quality (++): majority of criteria met, little or no risk of bias and results unlikely to be changed by further research. Acceptable (+): most criteria met, some flaws in the study with an associated risk of bias and conclusions may change in the light of further studies. Low quality (0): either most criteria not met or significant flaws relating to key aspects of study design, and conclusions likely to change in the light of further studies