MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069432084 · doi:10.1038/ajg.2011.474

Proton Pump Inhibitors vs. Histamine 2 Receptor Antagonists for Stress-Related Mucosal Bleeding Prophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients: A Meta-Analysis

2012· review· en· W2069432084 on OpenAlexaff
Alan Barkun, Marc Bardou, C. Pham, Myriam Martel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNosocomial Infections in ICU
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaUniversité de MontréalGovernment of CanadaMcGill UniversityMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStress ulcerInternal medicineConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialProton-pump inhibitorMeta-analysisIncidence (geometry)PneumoniaGastrointestinal bleedingRelative riskGastroenterologyUpper gastrointestinal bleedingEndoscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: H2-receptor antagonists (H2RA) have been shown to reduce stress-related mucosal bleeding (SRMB), yet randomized controlled trials assessing proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have yielded conflicting results. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of PPIs vs. H2RAs in the prophylaxis of SRMB in critically ill adults with risk factors for bleeding. METHODS: Tailored literature searches of the past four decades were conducted. Outcomes measured were the decreases in rates of clinically significant bleeding (B, primary outcome of the meta-analysis), nosocomial pneumonia (P), and mortality (M) (secondary outcomes). Study heterogeneity was sought and quantified. Results are reported as odd ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Eight fully published randomized controlled trials and five abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Prophylactic PPI administration significantly decreased the incidence of bleeding (N = 1,587 patients, OR = 0.30; 95% CI: 0.17-0.54), number needed to treat = 39; 95% CI: 21-303 with no observed statistical heterogeneity among the relevant comparisons (P = 0.93, I2 = 0.0%). No statistical differences were noted for the development of nosocomial pneumonia (n = 7, N = 1,017 patients, OR = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.69-1.62) or mortality (n = 8, N = 1,260 patients, OR = 1.19; 95% CI: 0.84-1.68) or (and no heterogeneity was found for either: P = 0.85, I2 = 0.0%, and P = 0.96, I2 = 0%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients at risk for the development of SRMB, PPI prophylaxis significantly decreased rates of clinically significant bleeding compared with H2RA, without affecting the development of nosocomial pneumonia or mortality rates. The magnitude of the beneficial effect, and its clinical relevance, now requires further characterization using cost-effectiveness analysis considering the incidence of stress-related mucosal disease-related bleeding.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.056
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations163
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicNosocomial Infections in ICUFrench-language works237,207