Skip to main content

Table 6 Characteristics of systematic reviews comparing other regimens (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

Countries of included RCTsb

Intervention

Comparison

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 and Calvet 2012 Spain [48]

December 2011

HP infection PUD/NUD/others

Germany, UK, Japan, Italy, Japan, Korea (2)

Concomitant therapy: metronidazole + standard triple therapy

Standard triple therapy

7

984

90 % vs. 78 %

2.36 (1.67–3.34)

0

Note: Standard triple therapy: (PPI(ome/rabe/lanso) + amoxicillin + clarithromycin)

Lv et al. 2015 China [49]

April 2014

HP infection; PUD/NUD/others; naïve to treatment or had previous treatment

China (4), Taiwan (3), Korea, Turkey

Quadruple regimens containing both amoxicillin and tetracycline

Other quadruple regimens where amoxicillin and tetracycline were not contained together

9

1453

78.1 % vs. 80.5 %

0.90 (0.46–1.78)

+

US, Italy, Turkey, Taiwan, China

Triple therapy containing both amoxicillin and tetracycline

Other regimens where amoxicillin and tetracycline were not contained together

5

840

68.8 % vs. 66.7 %

1.21 (0.64–2.28)

Nishizawa et al. 2014 Japan [54]

July 2014

HP infection

Japan (5), Korea

Rebamipide containing regimen: rebamipide+

Rebamipide NOT-containing regimen: none or mucosal protective agents other than rebamipide (teprenone/plaunotol)+

6

611

63.5 % vs. 52.7 %

1.59 (1.14–2.22)

+

+PPI(lanso/ome) + antibiotics (amoxicillin/metronidazole)

  1. HP H.pylori, 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
  3. b Countries of included RCTs: the number in the bracket represents the number of trials from the same country if more than one trials exist