ArticleScientific reports2022
Frequently reported adverse events of rebamipide compared to other drugs for peptic ulcer and gastroesophageal reflux disease.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of rebamipide/nizatidine in patients with erosive gastritis: A randomized, multicenter, phase 4 study.World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Trial
- Effectiveness and Safety of First-Line Empirical Eradication Therapy with Rebamipide: Results from the European Registry onAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Rebamipide Induces Hair Regeneration Through EP4-Driven Lipid Metabolism Remodeling.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Rebamipide in gastric mucosal protection and healing: An Asian perspective.World journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Review
- Subgroup disproportionality analysis of dementia-related adverse events with sacubitril/valsartan across geographical regions.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to detect safety signals of rebamipide and search for adverse events (AEs) of rebamipide that are more common than those of other drugs for peptic ulcer disease (PUD) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in the elderly population. A total of 101,735 AE reports for drugs used to treat PUD and GERD between 2009 and 2018 from the KIDS-KAERS database (KIDS-KD) were used. Disproportionality analysis was performed to calculate the proportional reporting ratio (PRR), reporting odds ratio (ROR), and information component (IC). Drug labels in Korea, Japan, and China were reviewed to identify signals that have been listed. AEs frequently reported in the elderly population were also analyzed. Seriousness and median time to AEs were evaluated for statistically significant AEs. A total of 14 signals were detected, and 4 signals (dry mouth, dermatitis, purpura/petechia, and fluid overload) were not listed on drug labels; however, they may be included as part of other listed AEs. In the elderly population, 11 AEs such as dyspepsia/indigestion/gastrointestinal distress, somnolence, dry mouth, and edema were common. These AEs were not serious and occurred within 2-9 days. This study identified possible AEs of rebamipide, a relatively safe drug.
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.