Use of prokinetic agents in hospitalised adult patients: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal motility is important for adequate uptake of fluids and nutrition but is often impaired in hospitalised patients. Prokinetic agents enhance gastrointestinal motility and are prescribed for many hospitalised patients. In this scoping review, we aimed to systematically describe the body of evidence on the use of prokinetic agents in hospitalised patients. We hypothesised, that the body of evidence would be limited and derive from heterogeneous populations. METHODS: We conducted this scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews statement. We searched Medline, Embase, Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library for studies assessing the use of prokinetic agents on any indication and outcome in adult hospitalised patients. We used a modified version of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 102 studies with a total of 8830 patients. Eighty-six studies were clinical trials (84%), and 52 (60%) of these were conducted in the intensive care unit, with feeding intolerance as the main indication. In the non-intensive care setting the indications were wider; most studies assessed use of prokinetic agents before gastroscopy to improve visualisation. The most studied prokinetic agent was metoclopramide (49% of studies) followed by erythromycin (31%). In total 147 outcomes were assessed with only 67% of the included studies assessing patient-centred outcomes, and with gastric emptying as the most frequently reported outcome. Overall, the data provided no firm evidence on the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects of prokinetic agents. CONCLUSIONS: In this scoping review, we found that the studies addressing prokinetic agents in hospitalised adults had considerable variations in indications, drugs and outcomes assessed, and that the certainty of evidence was judged to be low to very low.
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 | 0.017 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".