ArticleGut pathogens2020
Efficacy of tailored second-line therapy of
Article in Gut pathogens, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline-based bismuth quadruple therapy for helicobacter pylori infection in China: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Review
- Real-World Evidence on Different Amoxicillin-Containing Regimens forAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Third-Line and Later Susceptibility-GuidedJournal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Real-World Situation of Eradication Regimens and Risk Factors forClinical and experimental gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Antibiotic resistance in Helicobacter pylori: From potential biomolecular mechanisms to clinical practice.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2023Review
- Efficacy and safety of high-dose ilaprazole-amoxicillin dual therapy forFrontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Treatment of refractoryFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Review
- Culture-based antibiotic susceptibility testing forAnnals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAfter the failure of clarithromycin- and bismuth-based quadruple therapy (CBQT), levofloxacin- and bismuth-based quadruple therapy (LBQT) is recommended for
methodsPatients with CBQT failure were randomly assigned to receive TBQT or LBQT for 14 days. All patients underwent endoscopy for culture-based antibiotic susceptibility testing. Patients in the TBQT group exhibiting levofloxacin susceptibility were randomized to receive amoxicillin, levofloxacin, esomeprazole, and colloidal bismuth pectin (ALEB) or amoxicillin, furazolidone, esomeprazole, and colloidal bismuth pectin (AFEB) for 14 days; patients with levofloxacin resistance received AFEB.
resultsFrom May 2016 to June 2019, 364 subjects were enrolled. Eradication rates were significantly higher in the TBQT group (n = 182) than in the LBQT group (n = 182) according to both intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (89.6% vs. 64.8%, P < 0.001) and per protocol (PP) analysis (91.1% vs. 67.8%, P < 0.001). Among patients in the TBQT group with levofloxacin susceptibility, eradication rates were similar in the ALEB (n = 51) and AFEB (n = 50) subgroups according to both the ITT (86.3% vs. 90.0%, P = 0.56) and PP (88.0% vs. 90.0%, P = 0.75) analyses. Isolated clarithromycin and levofloxacin resistance rates were 57.7% and 44.5%, respectively. The total clarithromycin and levofloxacin resistance rate in strains with dual or triple resistance was 35.7%.
conclusionsTBQT was more effective than LBQT as a second-line strategy after CBQT failure. In the absence of antibiotic susceptibility testing, AFEB therapy might be used as a rescue therapy to eradicate
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.