Meta‐analysis: the efficacy of intravenous H<sub>2</sub>‐receptor antagonists in bleeding peptic ulcer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although a previous meta-analysis found that intravenous H2-receptor antagonists were only weakly beneficial in bleeding gastric ulcer and of no benefit in bleeding duodenal ulcer, patients with ulcer bleeding continue to receive such treatment. AIM: To re-evaluate the efficacy of intravenous H2-receptor antagonists in ulcer re-bleeding, surgery and mortality by updating the previous meta-analysis. METHODS: After two independent literature searches, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of intravenous H2-receptor antagonists in bleeding ulcer published between 1984 and 2000 were added to those from the initial meta-analysis. Pooled rates of re-bleeding, surgery and death were re-calculated, together with the relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat and Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio. RESULTS: Intravenous H2-receptor antagonists did not significantly reduce re-bleeding, surgery or death in bleeding duodenal ulcer. There were small but significant reductions in re-bleeding, surgery and death in bleeding gastric ulcer; the absolute risk reductions were 7.2%, 6.7% and 3.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous H2-receptor antagonists are of no value in bleeding duodenal ulcer, although they may be mildly beneficial in bleeding gastric ulcer. Because proton pump inhibitors have a greater inhibitory effect on gastric acid secretion than H2-receptor antagonists, they may be more effective in ulcer bleeding and should be further evaluated for that indication.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".