ArticleSingapore medical journal2022
Clinical audit of current
Article in Singapore medical journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: H. pylori eradication reduces the risk of gastric malignancies and peptic ulcer disease. First-line therapies include 14-day PAC (proton pump inhibitor [PPI], amoxicillin, clarithromycin) and PBMT (PPI, bismuth, metronidazole, tetracycline). Second-line therapies include 14-day PBMT and PAL (PPI, amoxicillin, levofloxacin). This clinical audit examined current treatment outcomes in Singapore. Methods: Clinical data of H. pylori-positive patientswho underwent empirical first- and second-line eradication therapies from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2018 were reviewed. Treatment success was determined by Results: A total of 963 patients (862 PAC, 36 PMC [PPI, metronidazole, clarithromycin], 18 PBMT, 13 PBAC [PAC with bismuth], 34 others) and 98 patients (62 PMBT, 15 PAL, 21 others) received first-and second-line therapies respectively. A 14-day treatment duration was appropriately prescribed for first- and second-line therapies in 65.2% and 82.7% of patients, respectively. First-line treatment success rates were noted for PAC (seven-day: 76.9%, ten-day: 88.3%, 14-day: 92.0%), PMC (seven-day: 0, ten-day: 75.0%, 14-day: 69.8%), PBMT (ten-day: 100%, 14-day: 87.5%) and PBAC (14-day: 100%). 14-day treatment was superior to seven-day treatment (90.8% vs. 71.4%; P = 0.028). PAC was superior to PMC (P < 0.001) but similar to PBMT (P = 0.518) and PBAC (P = 0.288) in 14-day therapies. 14-day second-line PAL and PBMT had similar efficacy (90.9% vs. 82.4%; P = 0.674). Conclusion: First-line empirical treatment using PAC, PBMT and PBAC for 14 days had similar efficacy. Success rates for second-line PBMT and PAL were similar.
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.