ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Guidelines for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection in Japan: 2024 revised edition.Journal of gastroenterology · 2026Guideline
- Persistence ofJournal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- European Code Against Cancer, 5th edition - cancer-causing infections and related interventions.Molecular oncology · 2026Review
- Global burden of gastric cancer attributed to high-salt diets: spatiotemporal trends and socio-demographic inequalities from 1990 to 2021.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Molecular Detection of Multiple Antimicrobial Resistance Genes inAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Prevalence and Diagnostic Comparison ofMicroorganisms · 2025Article
- Comparison of Four Tests for the Diagnosis ofHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Current and Future Perspectives on the Management ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Antibiotic Resistance inAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
51 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsSeveral methods are available to diagnose
methodsThe European Registry on the management of
resultsA total of 34,920 adult patients from 20 countries were included (mean age 51 years; 61% women). To establish the initial diagnosis, invasive tests were performed in 19,801 (71%) patients, non-invasive in 11,369 (41%), and both in 3437 (12%). The most frequent were histology (n = 11,885; 43%), a rapid urease test (n = 10,636; 38%) and an urea breath test (n = 7577; 27%). According to the age, invasive tests were indicated in 11,179 (77%) ≥50 years, and in 8603 (65%) <50 years. Depending on the country, the use of invasive tests ranged from 29-99% in <50 years to 60-99% in ≥50. Most of the tests used to confirm eradication were non-invasive (n = 32,540; 93%), with the urea breath test being the most frequent (n = 32,540; 78%). In 2983 (9%) post-treatment tests, histology (n = 1887; 5%) or a rapid urease test (n = 1223; 4%) were performed.
conclusionA great heterogeneity was observed for the initial diagnosis and confirmation of the eradication. The reasons for the apparent lack of adherence to the clinical guidelines should be further explored.
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.