ArticleCurrent therapeutic research, clinical and experimental2025
Efficacy of Potassium-Competitive Acid Blockers Versus Proton Pump Inhibitors for Gastric Ulcers: Bayesian and Frequentist Network Meta-Analysis With Cross-Inference Through a Quality management System.
Article in Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing acid-related disease management: insights into potassium-competitive acid blockers and proton pump inhibitors.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Review
- Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been the mainstay treatment for gastric ulcer (GU) for over 30 years. However, since the discovery of a new class of acid suppressants, potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs), the desire for a therapeutic agent has continued and the clinical trials on P-CABs have been conducted. In this regard, we aimed to assess whether P-CABs are noninferior to PPIs in patients with GU in terms of efficacy. Methods: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Additionally, we used a new methodology of inference concept with the purpose of grouping between P-CABs and PPIs. Moreover, our quality management system was integrated throughout the research to ensure data accuracy. Findings: We initially screened 438 studies and extracted 10 homogeneous GU RCTs with 6315 participants. The odds ratios (ORs) for the 4-week cure rate in Bayesian + frequentist NMA, tegoprazan 100 mg (OR = 4.14, 95% credible interval [CI] 0.56-26.3) and pantoprazole 40 mg (OR = 4.12, 95% CI 1.90-8.88) were the largest, respectively. The ORs for the 8-week cure rate in Bayesian + frequentist NMA, lansoprazole 30 mg (OR = 8.77, 95% credible interval [CI] 0.95-78.9) and lansoprazole 30 mg (OR = 7.91, 95% CI 2.60-24.03) was the largest, respectively. Conclusions: The results of the NMA reveal that the cure rates of P-CABs in cases of GU were not inferior to those of PPIs. As the inference by grouping PPIs and P-CABs, the results showed similar trends in terms of effectiveness between the two therapeutic classes.
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.