Trial reportWorld journal of gastroenterology2016
Randomized study of lafutidine vs lansoprazole in patients with mild gastroesophageal reflux disease.
Trial report in World journal of gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Design characteristics of comparative effectiveness trials for the relief of symptomatic dyspepsia: A systematic review.Integrative medicine research · 2021Review
- Recent Advances in the Pharmacological Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the clinical efficacy of the second-generation H2RA lafutidine with that of lansoprazole in Japanese patients with mild gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
methodsPatients with symptoms of GERD and a diagnosis of grade A reflux esophagitis (according to the Los Angeles classification) were randomized to receive lafutidine (10 mg, twice daily) or lansoprazole (30 mg, once daily) for an initial 8 wk, followed by maintenance treatment comprising half-doses of the assigned drug for 24 wk. The primary endpoint was the frequency and severity of heartburn during initial and maintenance treatment. The secondary endpoints were the sum score of questions 2 and 3 in the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS), and the satisfaction score.
resultsBetween April 2012 and March 2013, a total of 53 patients were enrolled, of whom 24 and 29 received lafutidine and lansoprazole, respectively. After 8 wk, the frequency and severity of heartburn was significantly reduced in both groups. However, lafutidine was significantly inferior to lansoprazole with regard to the severity of heartburn during initial and maintenance treatment (P = 0.016). The sum score of questions 2 and 3 in the GSRS, and satisfaction scores were also significantly worse in the lafutidine group than the lansoprazole group (P = 0.0068 and P = 0.0048, respectively).
conclusionThe clinical efficacy of lafutidine was inferior to that of lansoprazole, even in Japanese patients with mild GERD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.