4.7 Article

Helicobacter pylori Eradication Therapy for Functional Dyspepsia: A Meta-Analysis by Region and H. pylori Prevalence

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 8, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm8091324

关键词

Helicobacter pylori; eradication; functional dyspepsia; prevalence

资金

  1. Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Previous studies on the effect of Helicobacter pylori eradication on functional dyspepsia (FD) are conflicting. We performed a comprehensive meta-analysis on this issue according to region and prevalence of H. pylori. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of eradication of H. pylori on functional dyspepsia up to December 2018 were searched through PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Subgroup analyses by the outcome measure, region, and prevalence of H. pylori were performed. All data were analyzed with Review Manager 5.3. Results: Eighteen RCTs were included in our meta-analysis. Overall, the H. pylori eradication group showed significant improvement of symptoms compared with the control group (risk ratio (RR) = 1.18; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07-1.30, p < 0.01). There was moderate heterogeneity among studies (I-2 = 34%) and the number needed to treat (NNT) was 15.0. Helicobacter pylori eradication improved dyspeptic symptoms both in low (<50%) and high (>= 50%) H. pylori prevalence regions (RR = 1.21 and 1.17; 95% CI: 1.02-1.44 and 1.06-1.29, I-2 = 49% and 5%, respectively.) In the analysis of studies from Asia, however, the effect of eradication on improvement of dyspepsia was not significant (RR = 1.14; 95% CI: 0.99-1.33, p = 0.08, I-2 = 37%). Conclusion: Overall, H. pylori eradication provides significant improvement of symptoms in functional dyspepsia patients regardless of H. pylori prevalence. However, in the analysis of studies from Asia, the eradication did not significantly improve dyspeptic symptoms. In this region, eradication for dyspepsia can be individualized.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据