Meta-Analysis of Proton Pump Inhibitors in Treatment of Bleeding Peptic Ulcers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) compared with placebo and histamine receptor antagonists (H2RAs) for reducing the incidence of rebleeding, surgery, and death in acute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) associated with peptic ulcer disease. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of the English-language literature was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Pre-MEDLINE (from 1966 to September 2000) and a manual search of references. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials evaluating any PPI for acute GIB in adults with the end points of rebleeding, surgery of death. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine trials (1829 pts.) were included. The relative odds of rebleeding indicated a 50% reduction in the PPI-treated group (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.77; p = 0.002, NNTB 9; 95% CI NNTB 6 to 13). The relative odds of surgery indicated a 53% reduction in the PPI-treated group (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.77; p = 0.003; NNTB 17, 95% CI 12 to 35). The relative odds for mortality indicated a nonsignificant 8% decrease in the odds of death in the PPI-treated group (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.83, p = 0.81; NNTB 323, 95% CI NNTB 47 to infinity to NNTH 33). CONCLUSIONS: PPIs are superior to H2RAs and placebo in preventing rebleeding and the need for surgery in patients with GIB, although they do not appear to reduce mortality.
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 | 0.021 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".