Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26228097›Full record

Trial reportAlimentary pharmacology & therapeutics2015

Randomised clinical trial: the clinical efficacy and safety of an alginate-antacid (Gaviscon Double Action) versus placebo, for decreasing upper gastrointestinal symptoms in symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in China.

J Sun, C Yang, H Zhao, P Zheng, J Wilkinson, B Ng, Y Yuan

Retracted Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialRetracted Publication
In one paragraph

Trial report in Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. It is linked to trial NCT01869491 (A Multi-centre, Randomised, Double-blind, Two Arm, Parallel Group, Placebo-controlled Study to Assess the Effect of Compound Sodium Alginate Double Action Chewable Tablets in Patients With Gastro-esophageal Reflux Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

NCT01869491 phase3completednot on this map

A Multi-centre, Randomised, Double-blind, Two Arm, Parallel Group, Placebo-controlled Study to Assess the Effect of Compound Sodium Alginate Double Action Chewable Tablets in Patients With Gastro-esophageal Reflux Disease

TypeinterventionalSponsorReckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) LimitedRan2013 to 2014Enrolled1,107ConditionsGastroesophageal Reflux Disease, DyspepsiaArmsCompound Sodium Alginate Double Action Chewable Tablets, Matching placebo tablets
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Alginates: From the ocean to gastroesophageal reflux disease treatment.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2019
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

J SunRuijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
C YangShanghai Tongji Hospital, Shanghai, China.
H ZhaoChina-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China.
P ZhengZhejiang Hospital, Hangzhou, China.
J WilkinsonReckitt Benckiser, Slough, UK.
B NgReckitt Benckiser, Slough, UK.
Y YuanRuijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Reckitt Benckiser (United Kingdom) · GBRuijin Hospital · CNChina-Japan Friendship Hospital · CNTongji Hospital · CNZhejiang Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a paucity of large-scale studies evaluating the clinical benefit of the Gaviscon Double Action (DA) alginate-antacid formulation for treating gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms.

aimRandomised double-blind placebo-controlled parallel-group study to evaluate efficacy and safety of Gaviscon DA in reducing heartburn, regurgitation and dyspepsia symptoms in individuals with mild-to-moderate GERD in China.

methodsParticipants with symptomatic GERD (n = 1107) were randomised to receive Gaviscon DA or placebo (two tablets four times daily) for seven consecutive days. The primary endpoint compared the change in Reflux Disease Questionnaire (RDQ) score for the GERD (heartburn + regurgitation) dimension between Gaviscon DA and placebo. Secondary endpoints compared the change in RDQ scores for individual heartburn, regurgitation and dyspepsia dimensions, overall treatment evaluation (OTE) scores and incidence of adverse events (AEs).

resultsMean RDQ GERD scores: 2.51 for Gaviscon DA and 2.50 for placebo at baseline; 1.25 for Gaviscon DA and 1.46 for placebo post treatment. Gaviscon DA was statistically superior to placebo in reducing GERD and dyspepsia RDQ scores [least-squares mean (LSM) difference: GERD -0.21, P < 0.0001; dyspepsia -0.18, P = 0.0004], despite a substantial placebo response. The Gaviscon DA group reported more favourable overall treatment responses than the placebo group across all OTE categories (P < 0.0001). Superior relief of GERD symptoms was observed both in those with non-erosive and those with erosive reflux disease (LSM difference -0.14 [P = 0.038] and -0.29 [P < 0.0001] respectively). Incidence of AEs was similar in both groups.

conclusionGaviscon DA tablets provide effective and safe reduction in acid reflux and dyspepsia symptoms in Chinese individuals with mild-to-moderate GERD. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01869491.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAlginatesAluminum HydroxideAntacidsAnti-Ulcer AgentsChinaDouble-Blind MethodDrug CombinationsDyspepsiaFemaleGastroesophageal RefluxHeartburnHumansLaryngopharyngeal Refluxalginate, aluminium hydroxide, magnesium trisilicate, sodium bicarbonate drug combinationAlginatesAluminum HydroxideAntacidsAnti-Ulcer AgentsDrug CombinationsPlacebosSilicic AcidSodium Bicarbonate

Identifiers

PMID26228097
PMCPMC5042071
OpenAlexW1754995342

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.