The efficacy of VPZ is superior to PPI in first-line H. pylori triple eradication therapies but not in second-line therapies. The safety of VPZ -containing regimens appears to be equal or even superior to that of PPI. However, most reports included in this study had low levels of evidence. Hence, adequate and high-quality RCTs will be needed to support our results.

VD3 has protective effects against PT-G-induced TJ injuries both in vitro and in vivo, which may correlate with the disturbance of the MyD88-dependent zonulin release signaling pathway.

The objective abnormality and subjective symptoms in Eustachian tube dysfunction may represent two distinct pathological processes, which may nevertheless influence and exacerbate each other.

Background Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation (ESBD) is considered to be a promising method for the removal of large common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, when compared with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) alone, the efficacy and safety of ESBD remain controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ESBD vs. EST for the removal of large CBD stones. Methods Electronic databases were searched up to 15 July 2018 for literature that compared ESBD with EST for the removal of CBD stones. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) of the stone clearance rate and the complication rate were used to compare the efficacy and safety of ESBD vs. EST. Results A total of 18 studies with 2789 patients were included. The results showed that the stone removal rate was much higher in the ESBD group than in the EST group, both across all endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) sessions (OR 2.68, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.79 to 4.01) and during the first ERCP session (OR 2.07, 95 %CI 1.37 to 3.12). The ESBD group had fewer complications than EST alone (OR 0.63, 95 %CI 0.47 to 0.85). Moreover, the ESBD group needed less mechanical lithotripsy (OR 0.38, 95 %CI 0.24 to 0.61) and had a shorter procedure time (mean difference – 4.05, 95 %CI – 7.02 to – 1.09) than EST alone. Conclusion The efficacy and safety of ESBD were superior to those of EST for the removal of large CBD stones. Moreover, less mechanical lithotripsy and shorter procedure times were needed with ESBD to manage large stones.