ReviewGut pathogens2026
Clinical impact of high-dose esomeprazole-amoxicillin dual therapy as rescue treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Gut pathogens, 2026. 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.
- Advances in the Management of RefractoryGastro hep advances · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHelicobacter pylori infection, linked to peptic ulcer disease and gastric cancer, faces declining eradication rates due to antibiotic resistance. High-dose esomeprazole-amoxicillin dual therapy (HDDT) is a promising rescue regimen, but its efficacy and safety compared to standard therapies remain unclear.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, included four randomized controlled trials (n = 1,230) that compared HDDT with standard regimens. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched through April 2025. Outcomes included eradication rates, compliance, and adverse events. A meta-analysis was conducted using the inverse variance method, with heterogeneity assessed via I² statistics.
resultsHDDT showed no significant difference in eradication rates (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.89-1.08, P = 0.6438) or compliance (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.12, P = 0.2522) compared to standard therapies. However, HDDT significantly reduced overall adverse events (RR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.18-0.44, P < 0.0001), including nausea, headache, fatigue, dysgeusia, bloating, and abdominal pain. No significant differences were observed for serious adverse events, diarrhea, dizziness, decreased appetite, constipation, or skin rash. Heterogeneity varied across the outcomes.
conclusionHDDT is as effective as standard regimens for H. pylori rescue treatment, with a superior safety profile, supporting its use in patients with prior treatment failures.
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.