Trial reportWorld journal of gastroenterology2025
Regional multi-center randomized trial of three vonoprazan-amoxicillin dosing regimens for
Trial report in World journal of gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy of different durations and dosages of vonoprazan and amoxicillin dual therapy: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Evolving landscape of potassium-competitive acid blockers: toward disease-specific use beyond acid suppression.Journal of gastroenterology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background
aimTo evaluate the efficacy, safety, and optimal dosing of vonoprazan (VPZ)-amoxicillin (AMO) dual therapy in a non-inferiority randomized trial for
methodsIn this multi-center, randomized trial conducted at 17 hospitals in Sichuan Province, China, 1717 adults with confirmed infection were assigned (1:1:1) to 14-day regimens: (1) VPZ 20 mg BID + AMO 0.5 g QID; (2) 0.75 g QID; or (3) 1.0 g TID. The primary endpoint was the eradication rate based on intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses; secondary endpoints included adverse events (AEs) and treatment compliance.
resultsEradication rates were consistently high (92.35%-97.43%). In the 0.5 g QID group, ITT and PP eradication rates were 93.3% (95%CI: 91.2-95.1) and 97.4% (95%CI: 95.7-98.5), respectively, with no significant differences among groups (
conclusionVPZ-AMO dual therapy achieved excellent eradication, safety, and patient compliance. All regimens were similarly effective, whereas the 0.5 g QID dosing strategy offered the most favorable balance of efficacy and tolerability, supporting its use as a first-line option in high-prevalence settings.
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.