AIM: To compare the effectiveness of hybrid therapy with other recommended regimens using metaanalysis.METHODS: Bibliographical searches for randomized trials comparing hybrid and other therapies were performed in Pubmed, the Cochrane Library and relevant congresses up to February 2015 using the following keywords(all fields and/or me SH):(“Helicobacter pylori ” or “H. pylori”) and(“hybrid therapy” or “sequential-concomitant therapy”). metaanalyses were performed with Cochrane Review manager 5.1. The random effect model proposed by Der Simonian and Laird and the mantel-Haenszel method were used to estimate the pooled relative risk and 95%CI of the efficacy outcomes between hybrid therapy and other eradication therapies. RESULTS: Eight studies(2516 subjects) met entry criteria. The antimicrobial resistance in the study groups ranged from 6.9% to 23.5%. The mean cure rates of hybrid therapy by intention-to-treat(ITT) and perprotocol analyses were 88.5%(n = 1207; range: 80.0% to 97.4%) and 93.3%(n = 1109; range: 85.7% to99.1%), respectively. meta-analysis showed there was no significant difference in ITT eradication rate between hybrid and sequential therapy(relative risk: 1.01; 95%CI: 0.92-1.11). Subgroup analysis revealed hybrid therapy was more effective than sequential therapy in the non-Italian populations(95%CI: 1.01-1.18) and was only less effective in one, Italian population(95%CI: 0.83-0.98). There was no significant difference in eradication rate between hybrid therapy and concomitant therapy(95%CI: 0.93-1.02). No head-tohead comparisons of hybrid therapy and standard triple therapy or bismuth quadruple therapy were found. However, a multicenter, randomized trial showed that reverse hybrid therapy was superior to standard triple therapy(95.5% vs 88.6% ITT; P = 0.011).CONCLUSION: Hybrid therapy appears to be an effective, safe, and well-tolerated treatment for H. pylori infection in the era of increasing antibiotic resistance. AIM: To compare the effectiveness of hybrid therapy with other recommended regimens using metaanalysis. METHODS: Bibliographical searches for randomized trials comparing hybrid and other therapies were performed in Pubmed, the Cochrane Library and relevant congresses up to February 2015 using the following keywords (all fields (“Helicobacter pylori” or “H. pylori”) and (“hybrid therapy” or “sequential-concomitant therapy”). Metanalyses were performed with Cochrane Review manager 5.1 . The random effect model proposed by Der Simonian and Laird and the mantel-Haenszel method were used to estimate the pooled relative risk and 95% CI of the efficacy outcomes between hybrid therapy and other eradication therapies. RESULTS: Eight studies (2516 subjects) met The mean cure rates of hybrid therapy by intention-to-treat (ITT) and perprotocol analyzes were 88.5% (n = 1207; range: 80.0% to 9 Respectively. Meta-analysis showed there was no significant difference in ITT eradication rate between hybrid and sequential therapy (relative risk: 1.01; 95% CI: 7.4%) and 93.3% (n = 1109; range: 85.7% to 99.1% : 0.92-1.11). Subgroup analysis revealed hybrid therapy was more effective than sequential therapy in the non-Italian populations (95% CI: 1.01-1.18) and was only less effective in one, Italian population (95% CI: 0.83-0.98 There was no significant difference in eradication rate between hybrid therapy and concomitant therapy (95% CI: 0.93-1.02). No head-tohead comparisons of hybrid therapy and standard triple therapy or bismuth quadruple therapy were found. However, a multicenter, randomized trial showed that reverse hybrid therapy was superior to standard triple therapy (95.5% vs 88.6% ITT; P = 0.011) .CONCLUSION: Hybrid therapy appears to be effective, safe, and well-tolerated treatment for H. pylori infection in the era of increasing antibiotic resistance.