張少君,董小林
湖北醫(yī)藥學(xué)院附屬人民醫(yī)院體檢中心,湖北 十堰 442000
序貫療法與伴同療法根除幽門(mén)螺桿菌療效的Meta分析
張少君,董小林
湖北醫(yī)藥學(xué)院附屬人民醫(yī)院體檢中心,湖北 十堰 442000
目的 系統(tǒng)評(píng)價(jià)序貫療法(sequential therapy,ST)和伴同療法(concomitant therapy,CT)根除幽門(mén)螺桿菌(Helicobacter pylori,H.pylori)的有效性和安全性。方法 計(jì)算機(jī)檢索PubMed、Web of Science、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials、CENTRAL、EMBASE、CJFD、CBM、CNKI、VIP及WanFang data,檢索時(shí)間截至2015年7月1日,查找所有比較ST和CT根除H.pylori的隨機(jī)對(duì)照試驗(yàn)(RCTs)。由2名評(píng)價(jià)者按照納入和排除標(biāo)準(zhǔn)獨(dú)立選擇文獻(xiàn)、提取資料、評(píng)價(jià)質(zhì)量,采用RevMan 5.2和Stata 12.0軟件進(jìn)行Meta分析。結(jié)果 共納入8項(xiàng)RCTs,共2 541例患者。合并結(jié)果顯示:ST和CT的H.pylori根除率按意向性分析(ITT)分別為84.3%(95%CI:79.1%~89.4%)、86.7%(95%CI:81.0%~92.3%);按符合方案集分析(PP)分別為86.4%(95%CI:81.7%~91.0%)、89.8%(95%CI:85.1%~94.5%),2種療法在H.pylori根除率方面差異無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(ITT:RR=1.01,95%CI:0.97~1.04,P=0.75;PP:RR=1.00,95%CI:0.96~1.03,P=0.92)。ST和CT在不良反應(yīng)發(fā)生率方面差異也無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(RR=0.88,95%CI:0.78~1.00,P=0.05)。結(jié)論 基于目前的證據(jù)表明ST和CT根除H.pylori有效率和副作用方面差異無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。受納入研究數(shù)量和質(zhì)量限制,需要開(kāi)展更多高質(zhì)量、大樣本、多中心的RCTs進(jìn)一步論證其療效。
序貫療法;伴同療法;幽門(mén)螺桿菌;Meta分析
幽門(mén)螺桿菌(Helicobacter pylori,H.pylori)是生存于胃部及十二指腸各區(qū)域內(nèi)的一種革蘭陰性微需氧菌,與慢性胃炎、胃及十二指腸潰瘍、胃癌等疾病密切相關(guān)[1]。標(biāo)準(zhǔn)三聯(lián)療法(質(zhì)子泵抑制劑聯(lián)合兩種抗菌藥物)是目前推薦的根除H.pylori的一線治療方案[2]。其中質(zhì)子泵抑制劑聯(lián)合克拉霉素和阿莫西林或甲硝唑最為常用。但隨著抗菌藥物的廣泛應(yīng)用,H.pylori對(duì)克拉霉素等抗菌藥物的耐藥率逐年上升,從而導(dǎo)致H.pylori根除失敗[3]。國(guó)際上推出了序貫療法(sequential therapy,ST)、伴同療法(concomitant therapy,CT)等新的治療方案,顯示了良好的根除率[4-5]。目前已有大量研究[6-14]報(bào)道了ST和CT根除H.pylori的有效性和安全性,然而在藥物選擇、治療時(shí)間及最佳治療方案等方面仍未達(dá)成一致意見(jiàn)。本文我們運(yùn)用循證醫(yī)學(xué)的原理和方法,對(duì)ST和CT治療H.pylori的隨機(jī)對(duì)照試驗(yàn)(randomized controlled trials,RCTs)進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)評(píng)價(jià),為臨床決策提供最佳證據(jù)。
1.1 文獻(xiàn)檢索 計(jì)算機(jī)檢索PubMed、Web of Science、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials、CENTRAL、EMBASE、CJFD、CBM、CNKI、VIP及WanFang data,檢索時(shí)間均為建庫(kù)至2015年7月1日。文種限中、英文。英文檢索Helicobacter pylori orH.pylori, eradication, sequential therapy, concomitant therapy;中文檢索幽門(mén)螺桿菌、序貫療法、伴同療法,同時(shí)輔以文獻(xiàn)追溯。
1.2 納入與排除標(biāo)準(zhǔn) 納入標(biāo)準(zhǔn):(1)比較ST和CT根除H.pylori感染的試驗(yàn);(2)RCTs;(3)干預(yù)措施:ST前5~7 d采用PPI+阿莫西林治療,后5~7 d采用PPI+克拉霉素+硝基咪唑或呋喃唑酮治療;CT采用PPI+阿莫西林+克拉霉素+硝基咪唑或呋喃唑酮治療;(4)結(jié)局指標(biāo):首要指標(biāo)是H.pylori根除率,次要指標(biāo)是不良反應(yīng)發(fā)生率。排除標(biāo)準(zhǔn):(1)缺失重要研究數(shù)據(jù)的文獻(xiàn);(2)重復(fù)發(fā)表且病例數(shù)較少的文獻(xiàn);(3)有摘要而無(wú)全文,且聯(lián)系作者索取未果。
1.3 資料提取 由2位研究者獨(dú)立進(jìn)行文獻(xiàn)篩選和資料提取,意見(jiàn)不一致時(shí)通過(guò)討論解決或由第3位研究者協(xié)助解決。資料提取內(nèi)容包括:作者、發(fā)表年份、國(guó)家、樣本量、干預(yù)措施、隨訪周期、H.pylori感染診斷方法(治療前后)。
1.4 文獻(xiàn)質(zhì)量評(píng)價(jià) 由2位研究者根據(jù)Jadad量表[15]對(duì)納入研究的方法學(xué)質(zhì)量進(jìn)行評(píng)估,具體內(nèi)容包括隨機(jī)序列產(chǎn)生、盲法、分配隱藏、退出/失訪。分?jǐn)?shù)范圍為1~5分,得分>3分提示文獻(xiàn)質(zhì)量較高。
1.5 統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)分析 采用Cochrane協(xié)作網(wǎng)的RevMan 5.2進(jìn)行統(tǒng)計(jì)分析。合并效應(yīng)量選用相對(duì)危險(xiǎn)度(RR)及其95%CI。對(duì)納入研究進(jìn)行異質(zhì)性檢驗(yàn)(采用Q檢驗(yàn)和I2統(tǒng)計(jì)量),如P>0.1或I2<50%提示各研究間無(wú)異質(zhì)性,采用固定效應(yīng)模型進(jìn)行合并分析,反之則采用隨機(jī)效應(yīng)模型。敏感性分析為依次排除單個(gè)文獻(xiàn)后重新進(jìn)行Meta分析,估計(jì)綜合效應(yīng)大小。發(fā)表偏倚分析采用Stata 12.0通過(guò)Begg秩相關(guān)法、Egger回歸法進(jìn)行量化檢測(cè),P<0.05認(rèn)為存在發(fā)表偏倚。
2.1 文獻(xiàn)檢索結(jié)果 根據(jù)檢索策略,初檢出296篇文獻(xiàn),經(jīng)初步篩查,9篇文獻(xiàn)[6-14]初步納入分析,其中1篇文獻(xiàn)[14]缺少可提取數(shù)據(jù)被排除,最終納入8篇RCTs[6-13],包括2 541例患者。納入研究的一般情況如表1所示,其中4項(xiàng)研究[6,9-10,12]來(lái)自亞洲,3項(xiàng)研究[7,11,13]分析了歐洲人群,1項(xiàng)研究[8]來(lái)自拉丁美洲。Jadad評(píng)分結(jié)果顯示均>3分,提示納入文獻(xiàn)的研究質(zhì)量較好。
表 1 納入研究的基本情況
Tab 1 Characteristics of studies included in the Meta-analysis
納入研究年份國(guó)家疾病例數(shù)確診依據(jù)隨訪時(shí)間(周)根除后檢測(cè)根除方案STCTJadad評(píng)分Ang等[6]2013新加坡PUD+NUD+GERD153UBT、RUT、病理4UBTPPI+A1g,bid,5d;PPI+C500mg,M400mg,bid,5dPPI+A+C+M,bid,10d3DeFrancesco等[7]2014意大利PUD+NUD330RUT、病理6~813C-UBTO20mg+A1g,bid,5d;O+C500mg+T500mg,bid,5dO+A+C+T,bid,5dor14d4Greenberg等[8]2011拉丁美洲NR975UBT6~8UBTL30mg+A1g,bid,5d;L+C500mg,M500mg,bid,5dL+A+C+M,bid,5d4Huang等[9]2012中國(guó)PUD+胃炎169RUT、病理、細(xì)菌培養(yǎng)12UBTL30mg+A1g,bid,5d;L+C500mg,M500mg,bid,5dL+A+C+M,bid,10d4Lim等[10]2013韓國(guó)PUD+胃炎164RUT、病理413C-UBTR20mg+A1g,bid,7d;R+C500mg,M500mg,bid,7dR+A+C+M,bid,14d4McNicholl等[11]2014西班牙PUD+NUD33813C-UBT、RUT、病理、細(xì)菌培養(yǎng)413C-UBT、病理O20mg+A1g,bid,5d;O+C500mg,M500mg,bid,5dO+A+C+M,bid,10d3Wu等[12]2010中國(guó)PUD+胃炎+其他232RUT、病理、細(xì)菌培養(yǎng)6UBT、RUT、病理、細(xì)菌培養(yǎng)E40mg+A1g,bid,5d;E+C500mg,M500mg,bid,5dE+A+C+M,bid,10d3Zullo等[13]2013意大利NUD180RUT、病理613C-UBTO20mg+A1g,bid,5d;O+C500mg,T500mg,bid,5dO+A+C+T,bid,5d4
注:PUD:消化性潰瘍;NUD:非潰瘍性消化不良;GERD:胃食管反流?。籙BT:尿素呼氣試驗(yàn);RUT:快速尿素酶試驗(yàn);A:阿莫西林;C:克拉霉素;M:甲硝唑;T:磺甲硝咪唑;N:硝基咪唑;PPI:質(zhì)子泵抑制劑;O:奧美拉唑;E:埃索美拉唑;L:蘭索拉唑;R:雷貝拉唑;P:泮托拉唑;NR:未報(bào)道。
2.2 Meta分析結(jié)果
2.2.1H.pylori根除率:8項(xiàng)研究[6-13]均報(bào)道了ST和CT根除H.pylori的作用,其中ST組和CT組分別為1 220例和1 321例患者。各研究結(jié)果間無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)異質(zhì)性(I2=46%,P=0.08),故采用固定效應(yīng)模型進(jìn)行Meta分析。結(jié)果顯示,總體上,ST和CTH.pylori根除率按意向性分析(ITT)分別為84.3%(95%CI:79.1%~89.4%)、86.7%(95%CI:81.0%~92.3%);按符合方案集分析(PP)分別為86.4%(95%CI:81.7%~91.0%)、89.8%(95%CI:85.1%~94.5%),2種療法在H.pylori根除率方面差異無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(ITT:RR=1.01,95%CI:0.97~1.04,P=0.75;PP:RR=1.00,95%CI:0.96~1.03,P=0.92)(見(jiàn)圖1~2)。
根據(jù)CT療程(5 d、10 d、14 d)進(jìn)行的亞組分析顯示,有4篇文獻(xiàn)[6,9,11-12]報(bào)道了ST和10 d CT的療效比較,合并結(jié)果顯示2種療法之間差異無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(ITT:RR=0.95,95%CI:0.91~1.00,P=0.03;PP:RR=0.95,95%CI:0.91~1.00,P=0.05)(見(jiàn)圖3A~B);有3篇文獻(xiàn)[7-8,13]報(bào)道了ST和5 d CT之間的比較,發(fā)現(xiàn)2種療法根除H.pylori的作用差異仍無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(ITT:RR=1.06,95%CI:1.00~1.12,P=0.03;PP:RR=1.04,95%CI:0.99~1.09,P=0.13)(見(jiàn)圖3C~D);另外,有2篇文獻(xiàn)[7,10]報(bào)道了ST和14 d CT的療效比較,結(jié)果顯示2種療法之間療效差異無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(ITT:RR=1.00,95%CI:0.92~1.09,P=0.97;PP:RR=0.97,95%CI:0.90~1.05,P=0.45)(見(jiàn)圖3E~F)。
圖1 ST和CT根除H.pylori有效率的Meta分析(意向性分析)Fig1 Forest plots comparing different therapies in terms of H.pylori eradication rates on ITT analysis
注:ST組、CT組失訪和退出人數(shù)分別為100例、116例。
注:圖3B中ST組、CT組失訪和退出人數(shù)分別為42例、41例;圖3D中ST組、CT組失訪和退出人數(shù)分別為54例、72例;圖3F中ST組、CT組失訪和退出人數(shù)分別為9例、22例。
圖3 基于CT療程不同比較兩種療法根除H.pylori有效率的Meta分析A、C、E:意向性分析;B、D、F:協(xié)議性分析
Fig3 Forest plots comparing different therapies in terms ofH.pylorieradication rates based on the duration of CT A, C, E: ITT analysis; B, D, F: PP analysis
2項(xiàng)研究[9,12]報(bào)道了ST和CT對(duì)耐藥菌株的療效情況,合并分析顯示2種療法對(duì)耐藥菌株的作用相當(dāng),差異無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(RR=0.98,95%CI:0.91~1.06,P=0.64)(見(jiàn)圖4)。
圖4 ST和CT根除H.pylori耐藥株有效率的Meta分析(+:對(duì)甲硝唑和克拉霉素耐藥)
Fig4 Forest plots comparing different therapies in terms of eradication rates of antimicrobial resistance ofH.pylori(+: both resistances of Metronidazole and Clarithromycin)
2.2.2 不良反應(yīng):6項(xiàng)研究[7,9-13]報(bào)道了不良反應(yīng)的情況,各研究結(jié)果間無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)異質(zhì)性(I2=6%,P=0.38),故采用固定效應(yīng)模型合并統(tǒng)計(jì)量。結(jié)果顯示ST和CT的不良反應(yīng)發(fā)生率差異無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(RR=0.88,95%CI:0.78~1.00,P=0.05,見(jiàn)圖5)。
圖5 ST和CT不良反應(yīng)發(fā)生率的Meta分析Fig 5 Forest plots comparing different therapies in terms of side effects
2.3 敏感性和發(fā)表偏倚分析 依次單獨(dú)剔除1篇文獻(xiàn)后,合并效應(yīng)量無(wú)明顯改變。Begg漏斗圖結(jié)果顯示未見(jiàn)發(fā)表偏倚(見(jiàn)圖6)。Egger回歸法量化檢測(cè)也未見(jiàn)發(fā)表偏倚(ITT:P=0.560,PP:P=0.071)。
圖6 Begg漏斗圖分析Fig 6 Begg’s funnel plot for publication bias test on ITT analysis
目前,許多證據(jù)表明ST對(duì)H.pylori根除率優(yōu)于標(biāo)準(zhǔn)三聯(lián)療法[16],此外,Essa等[17]進(jìn)行的一項(xiàng)薈萃分析顯示CT清除H.pylori的療效優(yōu)于三聯(lián)療法,然而,ST和CT根除H.pylori的療效比較缺乏循證證據(jù)。
2007年,Graham等[18]對(duì)各種方案所獲得的H.pylori根除率進(jìn)行了如下分級(jí):ITT分析時(shí),分為優(yōu)秀=95%,良好=90%~94%,一般=85%~89%,差=81%~84%和不能接受=80%;PP分析時(shí),分為優(yōu)秀=95%,良好=90%~94%,差=86%~89%和不能接受=85%。本研究發(fā)現(xiàn)無(wú)論是PP分析還是ITT分析時(shí),ST和CT均未得到良好以上的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。導(dǎo)致以上結(jié)果的原因很多,包括:H.pylori對(duì)抗生素耐藥性的增加、復(fù)合菌株的感染、副作用及個(gè)體因素(如患者依從性、胃炎類(lèi)型、CYP2C19基因多態(tài)性、抽煙、體質(zhì)量指數(shù)等)。據(jù)報(bào)道[19],總體范圍內(nèi)H.pylori菌株對(duì)克拉霉素和甲硝唑的耐藥率分別為17.2%和26.7%。不同地區(qū)也有所差異,在意大利,H.pylori菌株對(duì)克拉霉素和甲硝唑的耐藥率僅為3.5%~4.3%[20],而在中國(guó),耐藥率達(dá)到20.5%[21]。本研究中,有2項(xiàng)研究[9,12]報(bào)道了ST和CT對(duì)耐藥菌株的療效情況,合并分析顯示2種療法對(duì)耐藥菌株的作用相當(dāng),差異無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。然而,由于納入研究數(shù)量有限,結(jié)論需進(jìn)一步驗(yàn)證。
本Meta分析也存在一定的局限性:(1)納入文獻(xiàn)較少,且文獻(xiàn)質(zhì)量參差不齊;(2)納入文獻(xiàn)均為正式發(fā)表的文獻(xiàn),不能完全排除發(fā)表偏倚的影響;(3)納入文獻(xiàn)中結(jié)局指標(biāo)不完全一致,影響進(jìn)一步的亞組分析等;(4)納入文獻(xiàn)中PPI選擇存在差異,可能會(huì)對(duì)結(jié)果有所影響。
綜上所述,ST和CT在根除H.pylori方面療效相當(dāng)。受納入研究數(shù)量和質(zhì)量限制,尚需開(kāi)展更多高質(zhì)量、大樣本、多中心的RCTs進(jìn)一步論證其療效。
[1]McColl KE. Clinical practice. Helicobacter pylori infection [J]. N Engl J Med, 2010, 362(17): 1597-1604.
[2]Malfertheiner P, Megraud F, O’Morain CA, et al. Management of Helicobacter pylori infection-the maastricht Ⅳ/florence consensus report [J]. Gut, 2012, 61(5): 646-664.[3]Graham DY, Fischbach L. Helicobacter pylori treatment in the era of increasing antibiotic resistance [J]. Gut, 2010, 59(8): 1143-1153.
[4]Zullo A, Rinaldi V, Winn S, et al. A new highly effective short-term therapy schedule for Helicobacter pylori eradication [J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2000, 14(6): 715-718.
[5]Treiber G, Ammon S, Schneider E, et al. Amoxicillin, metro-nidazole, omeprazole, clarithromycin: a new, short quadruple therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication [J]. Helicobacter, 1998, 3(1): 54-58.
[6]Ang TL, Fock KM, Song M, et al. A randomized controlled trial of triple therapy versus sequential therapy versus concomitant therapy as first line treatment forH.pyloriinfection [J]. Gastroenterology, 2013, 144 (Suppl 1): S53.
[7]De Francesco V, Hassan C, Ridola L, et al. Sequential, concomitant and hybrid first-line therapies for Helicobacter pylori eradication: a prospective randomized study [J]. J Med Microbiol, 2014, 63(Pt 5): 748-752.
[8]Greenberg ER, Anderson GL, Morgan DR, et al. 14-day triple, 5-day concomitant, and 10-day sequential therapies for Helicobacter pylori infection in seven Latin American sites: a randomized trial [J]. Lancet, 2011, 378(9790): 507-514.
[9]Huang YK, Wu MC, Wang SS, et al. Lansoprazole-based sequential and concomitant therapy for the first-line Helicobacter pylori eradication [J]. J Dig Dis, 2012, 13(4): 232-238.[10]Lim JH, Lee DH, Choi C, et al. Clinical outcomes of two-week sequential and concomitant therapies for Helicobacter pylori eradication: a randomized pilot study [J]. Helicobacter, 2013, 18(3): 180-186.
[11]McNicholl AG, Marin AC, Molina-Infante J, et al. Randomised clinical trial comparing sequential and concomitant therapies for Helicobacter pylori eradication in routine clinical practice [J]. Gut, 2014, 63(2): 244-249.
[12]Wu DC, Hsu PI, Wu JY, et al. Sequential and concomitant therapy with four drugs is equally effective for eradication ofH.pyloriinfection [J]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2010, 8(1): 36-41.[13]Zullo A, Scaccianoce G, De Francesco V, et al. Concomitant, sequential, and hybrid therapy forH.pylorieradication: a pilot study [J].
Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol, 2013, 37(6): 647-650.[14]Federico A, Nardone G, Gravina AG, et al. Efficacy of 5-day levofloxacin-containing concomitant therapy in eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection [J]. Gastroenterology, 2012, 143(1): 55-61.
[15]Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? [J]. Control Clin Trials, 1996, 17(1): 1-12.
[16]Yoon H, Lee DH, Kim N, et al. Meta-analysis: is sequential therapy superior to standard triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection in Asian adults? [J]. J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2013, 28(12): 1801-1809.
[17]Essa AS, Kramer JR, Graham DY, et al. Meta-analysis: four-drug, three-antibiotic, non-bismuth-containing "concomitant therapy" versus triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication [J]. Helicobacter, 2009, 14(2): 109-118.
[18]Graham DY, Lu H, Yamaoka Y. A report card to grade Helicobacter pylori therapy [J]. Helicobacter, 2007, 12(4): 275-278.
[19]De Francesco V, Giorgio F, Hassan C, et al. WorldwideH.pyloriantibiotic resistance: a systematic review [J]. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis, 2010, 19(4): 409-414.
[20]Zullo A, Perna F, Hassan C, et al. Primary antibiotic resistance in Helicobacter pylori strains isolated in northern and central Italy [J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2007, 25(12): 1429-1434.
[21]Su P, Li Y, Li H, et al. Antibiotic resistance of Helicobacter pylori isolated in the Southeast Coastal Region of China [J]. Helicobacter, 2013, 18(4): 274-279.
(責(zé)任編輯:馬軍)
Sequential therapy and concomitant therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication: a Meta-analysis
ZHANG Shaojun, DONG Xiaolin
Medical Examination Center, the Affiliated People’s Hospital of Hubei Medical College, Shiyan 442000, China
Objective To compare the efficacy of sequential therapy (ST) and concomitant therapy (CT) for the treatment of Helicobacter pylori (H.pylori) infection. Methods PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CJFD, CBM, CNKI,VIP and WanFang data were searched up to the end of July 1st, 2015 in order to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the effects of ST and CT onH.pylorieradication. The relative risk (RR) of eradicatingH.pyloriinfection after ST compared with CT was pooled. The eradication rates were considered both on an intention-to-treat (ITT) and a per-protocol basis (PP).Results A total of 8 RCTs involved 2 541 patients were included. The pooled data suggested there was not statistically significant in eradica thon rate between two groups (ITT analysis: STvsCT:RR=1.01, 95%CI: 0.97~1.04,P=0.75;PP analysis: STvsCT:RR=1.00, 95%CI: 0.96~1.03,P=0.92). At ITT and PP analysis, the overall eradication rates were 84.3% (95%CI: 79.1%~89.4%), 86.4% (95%CI: 81.7%~91.0%) in the ST group, 86.7% (95%CI: 81.0%~92.3%) and 89.8% (95%CI: 85.1%~94.5%) in the CT group, respectively. There was no significant difference in the rate of side events between two therapies (RR=0.88, 95%CI: 0.78~1.00,P=0.05).Conclusions ST and CT are similar to the treatment ofH.pyloriinfection. Due to the limitation of quantity and quality of the included studies, the efficacy of ST and CT has to be furthev proved by conducting more high quality, large scale and multicenter RCTs.【Key words】 Sequential therapy; Concomitant therapy; Helicobacter pylori; Meta-analysis
張少君,主治醫(yī)師,研究方向:膽胰疾病的診斷。E-mail:zhangshaojunsy@163.com
董小林,主治醫(yī)師,研究方向:膽胰疾病和消化道腫瘤的防治。E-mail:dongxlmail@163.com
10.3969/j.issn.1006-5709.2016.07.015
R57
A
1006-5709(2016)07-0773-06
2015-09-21