ReviewCureus2025
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Tegoprazan Versus Proton Pump Inhibitors for Erosive Esophagitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Potassium-competitive Acid Blockers in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Functional Dyspepsia: A Korean Expert Review With Original Meta-analyses.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Pooled it
- Tegoprazan in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Related Acid-Mediated Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Review
- Tegoprazan Versus Proton Pump Inhibitors for Erosive Esophagitis: A Meta-Analysis of Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trials.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of tegoprazan compared to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in the treatment of erosive esophagitis (EE). A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple electronic databases from inception to 25 March 2025. Randomized controlled trials comparing tegoprazan with PPIs in patients with endoscopically confirmed EE were included. Primary outcomes were healing rates and safety profiles. Four randomized controlled trials comprising 963 patients were included. Meta-analysis revealed comparable healing rates between tegoprazan and PPIs (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.97-1.10), with no significant differences observed at both four weeks (RR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.96-1.16) and eight weeks (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.96-1.06). Safety analyses demonstrated similar profiles between treatments, with no significant differences in treatment-emergent adverse events (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.73-1.35), drug-related adverse events (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.51-1.69), or serious adverse events (RR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.12-9.29). Symptom relief was comparable between groups across all studies, with tegoprazan showing consistent efficacy, regardless of CYP2C19 genotype. Most patients had mild to moderate EE (LA grades A and B), limiting conclusions about efficacy in severe cases. This first meta-analysis directly comparing tegoprazan with PPIs suggests that tegoprazan is an effective and safe alternative to PPIs for EE treatment. Its efficacy independent of CYP2C19 polymorphism represents a potential advantage. However, limitations include the small number of studies, predominantly Asian populations, and relatively short follow-up periods. Further research is needed to assess long-term outcomes and efficacy in diverse populations.
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.