ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2022
Comparative Efficacy of Various Pharmacological Interventions in the Treatment of Functional Dyspepsia: A Network Meta-Analysis.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Second Asian Consensus Report on Functional Dyspepsia (2025): Updated Recommendations.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Pooled it
- Prokinetics for the treatment of functional dyspepsia: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Pooled it
- Comprehensive Benefit Evaluation and Clinical Decision-Making After 4-week Cinitapride Treatment on Functional Dyspepsia: A Multicenter, Prospective Designed, Real-World Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Pharmacological Treatment of Functional Dyspepsia: An Old Story Revisited or a New Story to Be Told? A Clinical Review.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimPatients with functional dyspepsia often select different pharmacological treatments. We aimed to compare and rank the efficacy of different pharmacological interventions in treating functional dyspepsia.
methodsWe searched EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and MEDLINE from the date of database inception to March 28, 2019. A random-effects model was selected to conduct traditional meta-analysis to directly examine the efficacy of different pharmacological interventions. The consistency model was selected to conduct a network meta-analysis to evaluate the relative effects and rank probability of different pharmacological interventions.
resultsWe included 58 trials (15,629 participants and 21 pharmacological treatments). Network meta-analysis showed that cisapride, domperidone, itopride, and levosulpiride were better than placebo, especially in short term (< 4 weeks). And levosulpiride was significantly more effective than 15 other drugs and placebo (ORs ranging between 0.05 and 0.15). Cisapride was significantly more effective than lansoprazole (OR 0.30, 95% CrI 0.09-0.99) and tegaserod (OR 0.26, 95% CrI 0.07-0.98). The rank probability showed that levosulpiride was most likely to be rank 1 (77%), cinitapride rank 2 (17%), and cisapride rank 3 (23%).
conclusionsOur study confirmed the effectiveness of several pharmacological treatments for ameliorating functional dyspepsia. Furthermore, levosulpiride relatively ranked the best in managing FD. Physicians should be encouraged to apply promising pharmacological interventions (e.g., levosulpiride and cisapride). However, the results should be interpreted with caution due to small study effects.
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.