ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2025
Comparative efficacy and safety of vonoprazan versus esomeprazole-based high-dose dual therapies for first-line
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06811207 (Comparison of the Efficacies of Two Novel Dose Dual Therapies in the First-line Helicobacter Pylori Eradication), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Comparison of the Efficacies of Two Novel Dose Dual Therapies in the First-line Helicobacter Pylori Eradication
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Vonoprazan-amoxicillin dual therapy vs. proton pump inhibitor based dual therapy forFrontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of Keverprazan-based versus esomeprazole-based dual therapy for initial treatment ofAnnals of medicine · 2026Trial
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Effective Objectives: To compare the efficacy of 14-day vonoprazan-based (VA) and esomeprazole-based (EA) HDDT for Design: Randomized controlled trial (RCT). Methods: A total of 121 patients with confirmed Results: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between the VA and EA groups. In the intention-to-treat analysis, eradication rates were 86.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 78.4%-95.4%) in the VA group and 81.7% (95% CI: 71.3%-89.4%) in the EA group ( Conclusion: Both VA and EA-HDDT regimens demonstrated comparable efficacy, excellent compliance, and minimal AEs. Although VA therapy achieved a >90% eradication rate in the PP analysis, our study was underpowered to confirm superiority. Therefore, larger, adequately powered RCTs are warranted to validate the potential superiority of VA. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06811207.
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.