ReviewDigestive diseases and sciences2020
What Would the Screen-and-Treat Strategy for Helicobacter pylori Mean in Terms of Antibiotic Consumption?
Review in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Controversies in management of Helicobacter pylori infection from a U.S. perspective: population screening and treatment.Minerva gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Review
- Practice guidelines for the management ofSaudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology AssociationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Several guidelines recommend the screen-and-treat strategy, i.e. active search for the presence of Helicobacter pylori infection and its eradication to prevent the possibility of gastric cancer. It is thought that a relatively short duration antibiotic regimen given once in a lifetime would not significantly increase overall antibiotic consumption. However, this would mean offering antibiotic treatment to the majority of the population in countries with the biggest burden of gastric cancer who would, therefore, have the greatest benefit from such a strategy. So far, no country has implemented an eradication strategy. With an example based on the current situation in Latvia, we have estimated the increase in antibiotic consumption if the screen-and-treat strategy was applied. Depending on the scenario that might be chosen, clarithromycin consumption would increase up to sixfold, and amoxicillin consumption would double if the recommendations of the current guideline in the local circumstances was applied. It appears that an increase in commonly used antibiotic consumption cannot be justified from the viewpoint of antibiotic stewardship policies. Solutions to this problem could be the use of antibiotics that are not required for treating life-threatening diseases or more narrow selection of the target group, e.g. young people before family planning to avoid transmission to offspring. Additional costs related to the increase in resistome should be considered for future cost-effectiveness modelling of the screen-and-treat strategy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.