Objective To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of helicobacter pylori (HP) eradication in treating functional dyspepsia (FD) patients with HP infection. Methods The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about HP eradication vs. general treatment for FD patients published by April, 2012 were searched in the following databases: CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data, PubMed, Ovid, EMbase and The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2012). According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality. Then the meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.1 software. Results The total 14 RCTs were included. Among all 2 665 patients involved in, 1 339 were in the treatment group, while the other 1 326 were in the control group. The results of meta-analysis showed that HP eradication was superior to general treatment for FD patients in clinical effects (RR=3.90, 95%CI 3.08 to 4.94, Plt;0.000 01), symptomatic score (WMD=−1.68, 95%CI −1.88 to −1.47, Plt;0.000 01), and improvement of upper abdominal pain (RR=2.84, 95%CI 2.02 to 3.99, Plt;0.000 01). Conclusion With obviously clinical effects, HP eradication can decrease the symptomatic score of dyspepsia, and especially improve upper abdominal pain. For the quality and quantity limitations of the included studies, more well-designed and double blind RCTs are required to further prove this conclusion.
Objective To systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of itopride vs. mosapride in patients with functional dyspepsia, so as to provide references for clinical practice. Methods According to strict inclusive and exclusive criteria, relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on itopride vs. mosapride for functional dyspepsia were searched in CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, ISI, OVID, CBM, VIP, WanFang Data and CNKI from the date of their establishment to November 2011. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and evaluated methodological quality. Meta-analyses were conducted using Revman 5.1 software. Results A total of 4 trials involving 363 patients were included and data were coped with meta-analysis. a) About the improvement of overall symptoms: itopride was not superior to mosapride, with no significant difference (OR=1.62, 95%CI 0.53 to 4.93, P=0.4); b) About the improvement of single symptom: itopride was not superior to mosapride in improving single symptom as follows: postprandial fullness, upper abdominal distention, poor appetite, and upper abdominal pain, with no significant difference; and c) About the incidence of adverse events: itopride was similar to mosapride (OR=0.63, 95%CI 0.31 to 1.29, P=0.21). Conclusion Current evidence shows that itopride is similar to mosapride in effectively improving overall symptoms and single symptom, and it has fewer side effects than mosapride does. Due to the low quality of most included studies, more strictly-designed and large-scale RCTs are needed to provide reasonable proofs for clinic.
Objective To determine the effectiveness and safety of mosapride in patients with functional dyspepsia. Methods Trials were located through electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails (CENTRAL) ( Issue 2, 2006), MEDLINE (1978 to Jun. 2006), EMbase (1978 to Jun.2006), ISI (2000 to Jun.2006), OVID Database (1978 to Jun.2006), Chinese Biological Medicine Database (1978 to Jun.2006), Chinese VIP Database (1994 to Jun.2006) and WANFANG Database ( 1978 to Jun.2006). We also checked the bibliographies of retrieved articles and handsearched four kinds of important journals. Results Total of 18 trials involving 2 929 patients were included in the meta-analyses. These showed: (1) remission rate of global symptoms: Mosapride was not superior to placebo (RR 2.72, 95%CI 0.87 to 8.46), but was superior to metoclopramide (RR 1.66, 95%CI 0.82 to 3.35) and domperidone (RR 1.23, 95%CI 1.12 to 1.34); (2) remission rate of individual symptoms: 1) upper abdominal flatulence: Mosapride was superior to domperidone (RR 1.35, 95%CI 1.14 to 1.60), but was not superior to cisapride (RR 0.95, 95%CI 0.78 to 1.15); 2) postprandial fullness: Mosapride was superior to domperidone (RR 2.72, 95%CI 2.02 to 3.66), but was not superior to cisapride (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.18); 3) upper abdominal pain: Mosapride was superior to domperidone (RR 1.27, 95%CI 1.07 to1.49), but was not superior to cisapride (RR 0.94, 95%CI 0.75 to 1.17); 4) early saciety: Mosapride was superior to domperidone (RR 1.42, 95%CI 1.15 to 1.76), but was not superior to cisapride (RR 0.98, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.17); 5) nausea: Mosapride was not superior to cisapride (RR 1.07, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.39) and domperidone (RR 1.12 ,95%CI 0.97 to 1.28); 6) vomitting: Mosapride was not superior to cisapride (P=0.80) and domperidone (RR 1.02, 95%CI 0.87 to 1.18); 7) eructation: Mosapride was superior to domperidone (RR 1.41, 95%CI 1.17 to 1.70), but was not superior to cisapride (RR 0.85, 95%CI 0.68 to 1.05); 8) anorexia: Mosapride was superior to domperidone (RR 1.22, 95%CI 1.20 to 1.44), but was not superior to cisapride (RR0.88, 95%CI 0.64 to 1.19); 9) sour regurgitation: Mosapride was not superior to domperidone (P=0.64) and cisapride (P=0.32); 10) heartburn: Mosapride was not superior to domperidone (RR 0.97, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.10) and cisapride (RR 1.05, 95%CI 0.90 to 1.21); 11) upper abdominal discomfort: Mosapride was not superior to cisapride (P =0.64); (3) adverse event rate: Mosapride had a good safety profile. Conclusions The limited current evidence shows that, mosapride is not superior to placebo in relieving global symptoms, but is superior to domperidone in relieving upper abdominal flatulence, postprandial fullness, upper abdominal pain, early saciety, erutation and anorexia. Mosapride has a good safety profile.
【摘要】 目的 观察莫沙必利联合复方消化酶胶囊治疗功 能性消化不良的临床疗效和安全性。方法 2008年1月—2009年7月对62例功能 性消化不良患者随机分为两组,每组31例,两组均口服莫沙必利片,三餐饭前30 min服用5 mg;试验组加服复方消化酶胶囊,进餐后30 min服用1粒。4周后观察疗 效。结果 试验组治疗总有效率明显优于对照组,分别为87.1%和61.3%(Plt;0 05)。对上腹痛、餐后饱胀、早饱、上腹烧灼感症状改善情况进行比较,试验 组治疗前后的症状总积分及症状改善有效率与对照组比较差异有统计学意义( Plt;005),而且起效时间明显缩短。两组患者均未发现严重不良反应。结论 莫沙必利联合复方消化酶胶囊治疗功能性消化不良安全有效，其疗效明显优于 单用促动力药莫沙必利。
Objective To provide evidence of the role of helicobacter pylori eradication in the treatment of functional dyspepsia. Methods We searched VIP, CBMdisc, MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library for systematic reviews, meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials and clinical guidelines involving helicobacter pylori and functional dyspepsia, so as to provide the best evidence for clinical practice. Results We included two systematic reviews, one meta-analysis and eleven randomized controlled trials. The evidence identified showed that helicobacter pylori infection was more prevalent in functional dyspepsia than in asymptomatic patients, but the effect of H pylori infection in the pathogenesis of functional dyspepsia remained controversial. H pylori eradication therapy had a relatively weak effect in H pylori positive functional dyspepsia. An economic model suggested that this modest benefit may still be cost-effective, but more studies are needed to assess this. Conclusion According to the current evidence, it can be concluded that helicobacter pylori eradication for the treatment of functional dyspepsia should be individualized.
Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a common functional gastrointestinal disorder in clinical practice. Due to its long-term natural history, FD significantly impacts patients' quality of life and imposes a heavy social burden. Existing evidence suggests that acupuncture can effectively alleviate FD symptoms and is safe for treatment. However, current studies still face fragmented evidence regarding acupoint combinations, standardized procedures, and subtype interventions. Moreover, the existing clinical guidelines for FD do not provide specific recommendations on acupuncture treatment. To address the series of clinical issues faced by acupuncture in treating FD and to offer a scientific and standardized clinical protocol for acupuncture in FD treatment, the establishment of the "Clinical Practice Guidelines for Acupuncture Treatment of Functional Dyspepsia" was initiated by the Wangjing Hospital of the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences. This protocol systematically introduces the background, basic steps, working group members and their responsibilities, scope of application, the collection and determination of clinical issues and outcome indicators, evidence retrieval and evaluation methods, formulation of recommendations, external review and approval of recommendations, release and updating of the final draft, and the processes of promotion and implementation.
Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine for the treatment of functional dyspepsia (FD) and compare the difference of efficacy between Chinese herbal medicine and western medicine. Methods Based on the principles and methods of Cochrane systematic reviews, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, CBMdisc and CNKI from inception to Dec. 2008. And we also handsearched relevant journals and conference proceedings. We evaluated the risk of bias in the included randomized controlled trials(RCTs) according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. The Cochrane Collaboration’s software RevMan 4.2.8 was used for meta-analysis. Results Seven studies involving 981 patients were identified. The results of meta-analysis showed that: (1) There was no significant difference between Dalitong granule and cisaprid in effective rates (RR=1.03, 95%CI 0.97 to 1.09, P=0.36), piman syndrome (RR=1.06, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.18, P=0.23), gastric emptying function (RR=1.05, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.45, P=0.78), syndromes of TCM (WMD=0.41, 95%CI –1.05 to 1.87, P=0.58), pulse and tongue picture (RR=1.00, 95%CI 0.69 to 1.45, P=0.98), and adverse reaction (RR=1.00, 95%CI 0.69 to 1.45, P=0.46). (2) There was no significant difference between Weishuan pellet and cisaprid on effective rates (RR=1.02, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.07, P=0.53), piman syndrome (RR=1.06, 95%CI 0.97 to 1.15, P=0.19), gastric emptying function (RR=1.05, 95%CI 0.86 to 1.28, P=0.63), syndromes of TCM (WMD=0.70, 95%CI 0.11 to 1.29, P=0.02) and adverse reaction (RR=0.33, 95%CI 0.02 to 5.28, P=0.44). (3) There was no significant difference among Jianpiyiqi prescription (RR=1.16, 95%CI 1.00 to 1.34, P=0.05), Liqifuwei oral liquid (RR=1.00, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.11, P=0.94) and Jianpixiaozhang granules (RR=0.88, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.00, P=0.06) compared with cisaprid in effective rates (Pgt;0.05). (4) There was no significant difference between Hewei Xiaopi Capsule and domperidone on effective rates (RR=1.11, 95%CI 0.87 to 1.41, P=0.42) and piman syndrome (RR=1.07, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.24, P=0.35). Conclusion Chinese herbal medicine has a better clinical cure rate and marks of TCM syndrome on FD than western medicine. But we have no adequate evidence to confirm whether western medicine can be substituted by Chinese herbal medicine for the treatment of FD. Therefore, we need more high quality RCTs to confirm this conclusion.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of Deanxit for functional dyspepsia (FD).MethodsCBM, WanFang Data, CNKI, PubMed, LWW and Web of Science databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on Deanxit for FD from inception to June 30th, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed using StataSE 12.0 software.ResultsA total of 53 RCTs were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that compared with conventional gastrointestinal drugs, combined with Deanxit had higher total effective rate (RR=1.30, 95%CI 1.21 to 1.39, P<0.01) and higher incidence of adverse reactions (RR=1.23, 95%CI 1.03 to 1.47, P=0.026).ConclusionsThe current evidence shows that, compared with conventional gastrointestinal drugs or placebo alone, combined with Deanxit have higher total effective rate and higher incidence of adverse reactions. Due to limited quality of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.