ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2011
Impact of multi-approach strategy on acid suppressive medication use in a teaching hospital in Qatar.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Reducing Inappropriate Proton Pump Inhibitors Use for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients: Systematic Review of De-Implementation Studies.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Effects of the Nudge Theory-Based Multifaceted Intervention on Reducing Inappropriate Proton Pump Inhibitors Use for Prophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients: A Non-Randomized Controlled Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of a multi-approach strategy to improve the appropriate usage of acid suppressive medication (ASM) in medical inpatients and compare it with the baseline data from 2007.
settingFive general medicine wards in a 600-bed teaching hospital in Doha, Qatar.
methodA prospective evaluation of the usage of ASM 1 year after a multi-approach strategy. This consisted of four main interventions: audit and feedback method (including awareness lectures to all medical and pharmacy staff), implementation of a usage guideline for medical inpatients, circulating a logarithmic chart on the proper usage of ASM for medical inpatients from admission through to discharge and participation of clinical pharmacists in the multidisciplinary rounds. All medical patients admitted from May through June 2009 were evaluated. Data about the usage of ASM were collected upon and during admission, at discharge and at the next follow-up visit. Justified indications for its usage were based on the approved product information and on evidence-based literature recommendations. Data were compared with the findings of the baseline clinical audit done 2 years earlier.
main outcome measureThe usage of ASM in justified and non-justified indications upon and during admission, at discharge and at the next follow up visit.
resultsA total of 414 patients were admitted during the study period, 208 patients (50%) received ASM compared to 53% in 2007 (206 patients out of 389). Seventy-four patients (36%) were using ASM upon admission compared to 48 patients (23%) in the 2007 clinical audit. Inappropriate ASM use decreased with 51% during admission (66 to 32%, P < 0.0001), 62% at discharge (34 to 13%, P < 0.0001) and 67% at the next follow up visit (15 to 5%, P = 0.0008).
conclusionDespite the higher number of patients receiving ASM upon admission, the multi-approach strategy used in our institution resulted in a significant improvement in the appropriate usage of ASM in medical inpatients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21725628What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.