Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23672202›Full record

Trial reportBMC gastroenterology2013

Preventive effect of irsogladine or omeprazole on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced esophagitis, peptic ulcers, and small intestinal lesions in humans, a prospective randomized controlled study.

Takanori Kuramoto, Eiji Umegaki, Sadaharu Nouda, Ken Narabayashi, Yuichi Kojima, Yukiko Yoda, Kumi Ishida, Ken Kawakami, Yosuke Abe, Toshihisa Takeuchi and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC gastroenterology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Asymptomatic small intestinal ulcerative lesions: Obesity andWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Takanori Kuramoto2nd Department of Internal Medicine, Osaka Medical College, 2-7 Daigaku-machi, Takatsuki, Osaka, Japan.
Eiji Umegaki
Sadaharu Nouda
Ken Narabayashi
Yuichi Kojima
Yukiko Yoda
Kumi Ishida
Ken Kawakami
Yosuke Abe
Toshihisa Takeuchi
Takuya Inoue
Mitsuyuki Murano
Satoshi Tokioka
Kazuhide Higuchi
Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProton-pump inhibitors such as omeprazole are a standard treatment to prevent non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced upper gastrointestinal mucosal injuries. However, it is unclear which drugs may protect against all NSAID-induced digestive-tract injuries. Here, we compare the efficacy of the gastromucoprotective drug irsogladine with omeprazole in preventing NSAID-induced esophagitis, peptic ulcers, and small-intestinal mucosal injury in healthy subjects.

methodsThirty-two healthy volunteers were assigned to an irsogladine group (Group I; n = 16) receiving diclofenac sodium 75 mg and irsogladine 4 mg daily for 14 days, or an omeprazole group (Group O; n = 16) receiving diclofenac sodium 75 mg and omeprazole 10 mg daily for 14 days. Esophagitis and peptic ulcers were evaluated by esophagogastroduodenoscopy and small-intestinal injuries by capsule endoscopy, fecal calprotectin, and fecal occult blood before and after treatment.

resultsThere was no significant difference between Group I and Group O with respect to the change in lesion score in the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum before and after treatment.NSAID treatment significantly increased the number of small intestinal mucosal breaks per subject by capsule endoscopic evaluation, from a basal level of 0.1 ± 0.3 up to 1.9 ± 2.0 lesions in Group O (p = 0.0002). In contrast, there were no significant changes in the mean number of mucosal breaks before and after co-treatment in Group I (0.3 ± 0.8 to 0.5 ± 0.7, p = 0.62), and the between-group difference was significant (p = 0.0040). Fecal calprotectin concentration, when the concentration before treatment was defined as 1, was significantly increased both in Group O (from 1.0 ± 0.0 to 18.1 ± 37.1, p = 0.0002) and Group I (from 1.0 ± 0.0 to 6.0 ± 11.1, p = 0.0280); the degree of increase in Group O was significantly higher compared with that in Group I (p<0.05). In addition, fecal occult blood levels increased significantly in Group O (p = 0.0018), but there was no change in Group I (p = 1.0), and the between-group difference was significant (p = 0.0031).

conclusionIrsogladine protected against NSAID-induced mucosal injuries throughout the gastrointestinal tract, from esophagus to small intestine, significantly better than omeprazole.

trial registrationThis study was registered in the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (Registry ID number; UMIN000008114).

Indexed as

AdultAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalAnti-Ulcer AgentsDiclofenacEndoscopy, GastrointestinalEsophagitisFecesFemaleHumansIntestinal MucosaIntestine, SmallLeukocyte L1 Antigen ComplexMaleOccult BloodOmeprazolePeptic UlcerAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalAnti-Ulcer AgentsDiclofenacirsogladineLeukocyte L1 Antigen ComplexOmeprazoleTriazines

Identifiers

PMID23672202
PMCPMC3658908
OpenAlexW2133848536

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.