Efficacy and Safety of Proton Pump Inhibitors in the Management of Pediatric Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are commonly prescribed to infants and children for managing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Recently published literature illustrates conflicting evidence on the efficacy of PPIs in infants and children. Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews have demonstrated a lack of efficacy of PPIs, specifically in young infants. Furthermore, emerging evidence also suggests that PPIs are not as benign as once thought, with newer data implicating a potential association of PPIs with an increased risk of respiratory tract infections, gastrointestinal infections, bone fractures, hypomagnesemia, and the occurrence of rebound hyperacidity after discontinuation of PPI therapy. To summarize the emerging data in children, we reviewed the literature to assess the efficacy and safety of PPIs in managing pediatric GERD. Despite conflicting evidence on the efficacy of PPIs, most studies in children demonstrated some benefit when compared with placebo. With respect to the safety of PPIs in children, only a few small studies and case reports indicated a potential association of PPIs with an increased risk of respiratory tract or gastrointestinal infections, bone fractures, and hypomagnesemia; however, many of those studies had their own limitations. From the review, it is clear that further well-designed trials and observational studies are needed to shed more light on the efficacy and safety of PPIs in the pediatric population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".