4.7 Review

Systematic review with meta-analysis: Saccharomyces boulardii supplementation and eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 41, 期 12, 页码 1237-1245

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.13214

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical University of Warsaw

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundUnsatisfactory Helicobacter pylori eradication rates and therapy-associated side effects remain a problem. AimTo update our 2010 meta-analysis on the effects of Saccharomyces boulardii as supplementation to a standard eradication regimen on H. pylori eradication rates and therapy-associated side effects. MethodsThe Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from July 2010 (end date of last search) to February 2015, with no language restrictions, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs); additional references were obtained from reviewed articles. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. ResultsEleven RCTs (2200 participants, among them 330 children) met the inclusion criteria. Of the 853 patients in the S. boulardii group, 679 (80%, 95% CI 77-82) experienced eradication compared with 608 of the 855 patients (71%, 95% CI 68-74) in the control group [relative risk (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-1.17; moderate quality evidence]. S. boulardii compared with control reduced the risk of overall H. pylori therapy-related adverse effects (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31-0.64; moderate quality evidence), particularly of diarrhoea (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.42-0.62; high quality evidence) and nausea [RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.44-0.83 (moderate quality of evidence)]. ConclusionsIn the populations studied, the effectiveness of standard triple therapy was unsatisfactory. The addition of S. boulardii significantly increased the eradication rate, but it was still below the desired level of success. Saccharomyces boulardii significantly decreased some therapy-related side effects.

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