↓ Skip to main content

Beyond Maastricht IV: are standard empiric triple therapies for Helicobacter pylori still useful in a South-European country?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Gastroenterology, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Beyond Maastricht IV: are standard empiric triple therapies for Helicobacter pylori still useful in a South-European country?
Published in
BMC Gastroenterology, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12876-015-0245-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nuno Almeida, Maria Manuel Donato, José Manuel Romãozinho, Cristina Luxo, Olga Cardoso, Maria Augusta Cipriano, Carol Marinho, Alexandra Fernandes, Carlos Calhau, Carlos Sofia

Abstract

Empiric triple treatments for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) are increasingly unsuccessful. We evaluated factors associated with failure of these treatments in the central region of Portugal. This single-center, prospective study included 154 patients with positive (13)C-urea breath test (UBT). Patients with no previous H. pylori treatments (Group A, n = 103) received pantoprazole 40 mg 2×/day, amoxicillin 1000 mg 12/12 h and clarithromycin (CLARI) 500 mg 12/12 h, for 14 days. Patients with previous failed treatments (Group B, n = 51) and no history of levofloxacin (LVX) consumption were prescribed pantoprazole 40 mg 2×/day, amoxicillin 1000 mg 12/12 h and LVX 250 mg 12/12 h, for 10 days. H. pylori eradication was assessed by UBT 6-10 weeks after treatment. Compliance and adverse events were assessed by verbal and written questionnaires. Risk factors for eradication failure were determined by multivariate analysis. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol eradication rates were Group A: 68.9% (95% CI: 59.4-77.1%) and 68.8% (95% CI: 58.9-77.2%); Group B: 52.9% (95% CI: 39.5-66%) and 55.1% (95% CI: 41.3-68.2%), with 43.7% of Group A and 31.4% of Group B reporting adverse events. Main risk factors for failure were H. pylori resistance to CLARI and LVX in Groups A and B, respectively. Another independent risk factor in Group A was history of frequent infections (OR = 4.24; 95% CI 1.04-17.24). For patients with no H. pylori resistance to CLARI, a history of frequent infections (OR = 4.76; 95% CI 1.24-18.27) and active tobacco consumption (OR = 5.25; 95% CI 1.22-22.69) were also associated with eradication failure. Empiric first and second-line triple treatments have unacceptable eradication rates in the central region of Portugal and cannot be used, according to Maastricht recommendations. Even for cases with no H. pylori resistance to the used antibiotics, results were unacceptable and, at least for CLARI, are influenced by history of frequent infections and tobacco consumption.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 38%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 12 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 February 2016.
All research outputs
#17,758,492
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from BMC Gastroenterology
#1,034
of 1,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#265,254
of 385,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Gastroenterology
#14
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,744 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 385,356 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.