Description of Prescribing Practices in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Receiving Intravenous Proton-Pump Inhibitors: A Multicentre Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intravenous forms of proton pump inhibitors (IV PPI) are routinely used for patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, but a significant concern for their inappropriate use has been suggested. patients and METHODS: All consecutive patients who received IV PPI (pantoprazole) over 20 months in six Canadian hospitals were reviewed. Prescribing practices, endoscopic findings and outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 854 patients received IV PPI. Over 90% of patients were given IV PPI for treatment of known or suspected active upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Most patients (69%) underwent upper endoscopy, and 58% of these patients had peptic ulcer disease (PUD). The majority of patients who had endoscopy (57%) had IV PPI administered in advance of the procedure. Of the 334 patients who had IV PPI given in advance, 46 (13.8%) were found to have high risk bleeding PUD stigmata at endoscopy. The remaining 288 patients (86.2%) with advance IV PPI had low-risk PUD lesions or non-PUD lesions; IV PPI was continued after endoscopy in 164 (56.9%) of these patients. CONCLUSIONS: IV PPI is often used before endoscopy in suspected upper gastrointestinal bleed and maintained, regardless of endoscopic findings, after the endoscopy in many Canadian centres. Further study is required to support these clinical practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".