English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

It sounds all too obvious: Screen people for Helicobacter pylori , a known cause of gastric cancer; then treat the infection with antibiotics and save hundreds of thousands of lives each year. But it’s not that simple, and a debate about the pros and cons of population screening and treatment for H. pylori continues to simmer. In July, a new study in The Lancet added fresh fuel to the discussion. Masahiro Asaka, M.D., of Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine in Japan and colleagues in the Japan GAST Study Group studied 544 patients with early gastric cancer and H. pylori infection. The patients were randomized to receive either standard care for gastric cancer or standard care plus antibiotics to eradicate the infection. Among those who took the antibiotics, nine developed new cancers compared with 14 among those receiving standard care. The difference was statistically signifi cant. In an accompanying editorial, Nicholas

Helicobacter pylori: Good Side Complicates Efforts To Combat Bad Side