4.6 Review

Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection in Korea, 2013 revised edition

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Volume 29, Issue 7, Pages 1371-1386

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.12607

Keywords

adaptation; diagnosis; guideline; Helicobacter pylori; treatment

Funding

  1. Korean Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [A102065]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research first developed guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection in 1998, and revised guidelines were proposed in 2009 by the same group. Although the revised guidelines were based on a comprehensive review of published articles and the consensus of expert opinions, the revised guidelines were not developed using an evidence-based process. The new guidelines presented in this study include specific changes regarding indication and treatment of H. pylori infection in Korea, and were developed through the adaptation process using an evidence-based approach. After systematic review of the literature, six guidelines were selected using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II process. A total of 21 statements were proposed with the grading system and revised using the modified Delphi method. After the guideline revisions, 11 statements about indication of test and treatment, four statements about diagnosis, and four statements about treatment of H. pylori infection were developed. The revised guidelines were reviewed by external experts before receiving official endorsement from the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research, and disseminated to physicians and other medical professionals for use in clinical practice in Korea. The guidelines will continue to be updated and revised periodically.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available