A cluster randomised, crossover, registry-embedded clinical trial of proton pump inhibitors versus histamine-2 receptor blockers for ulcer prophylaxis therapy in the intensive care unit (PEPTIC study): study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The balance of risks and benefits with using proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) versus histamine-2 receptor blockers (H2RB) for stress ulcer prophylaxis in patients who are invasively ventilated in the intensive care unit (ICU) is uncertain. Objective: To describe the study protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Proton Pump Inhibitors versus Histamine-2 Receptor Blockers for Ulcer Prophylaxis Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit (PEPTIC) study. Design, setting and participants: Protocol for a prospective, multicentre, randomised, open-label, cluster crossover, registry-embedded trial to be conducted in 50 ICUs in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The PEPTIC study will compare two approaches to stress ulcer prophylaxis in mechanically ventilated adults implemented at the level of the ICU. One approach is to use PPIs as the default therapy and the other approach is to use H2RBs as the default therapy when stress ulcer prophylaxis is prescribed. Each ICU, by random allocation, will use one approach for 6 months and will then switch to the opposite approach for the next 6 months. The PEPTIC study began recruitment in August 2016 and will complete recruitment in January 2019. Main outcome measures: The primary end point will be in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes include clinically significant upper gastrointestinal bleeding, Clostridium difficile infection, ICU length of stay and hospital length of stay. Results and conclusions: The PEPTIC study will compare the effect on in-hospital mortality of implementing, at the level of the ICU, the use of PPI as the preferred agent for stress ulcer prophylaxis in mechanically ventilated adults in the ICU with using H2RB as the preferred agent. Trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTRN 12616000481471).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".