Skip to main content

Advertisement

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