Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25759512›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical biochemistry and nutrition2015

Proton pump inhibitor alone vs proton pump inhibitor plus mucosal protective agents for endoscopic submucosal dissection-induced ulcer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Toshihiro Nishizawa, Hidekazu Suzuki, Takanori Kanai, Naohisa Yahagi

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical biochemistry and nutrition, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. GERD: Latest update on acid-suppressant drugs.Current research in pharmacology and drug discovery · 2024
    Article
  6. Recent advances on polaprezinc for medical use (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2021
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Toshihiro NishizawaDivision of Research and Development for Minimally Invasive Treatment, Cancer Center, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160-8582, Japan ; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160-8582, Japan.
Hidekazu SuzukiDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160-8582, Japan.
Takanori KanaiDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160-8582, Japan.
Naohisa YahagiDivision of Research and Development for Minimally Invasive Treatment, Cancer Center, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160-8582, Japan.
Keio University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mucosal protective agents may improve healing of patients with endoscopic submucosal dissection-induced ulcers. The present study systematically evaluated published clinical trials to determine whether combined therapeutic use of mucosal protective agents and proton pump inhibitors can improve the outcome of patients with endoscopic submucosal dissection-induced ulcers compared to treatment with proton pump inhibitors alone. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the Igaku-Chuo-Zasshi database were searched to identify eligible randomized trials for systematic review. We identified 11 randomized trials for inclusion in our study (1,160 patients). Pooled endoscopic submucosal dissection-induced ulcer healing rates were 45.8% and 34.4% for patients with or without mucosal protective agents, respectively. The odds ratio was 2.28 (95% confidence interval, 1.57-3.31) with no significant study heterogeneity. In conclusion, the systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the combined therapeutic use of proton pump inhibitors and mucosal protective agents improved healing rates of endoscopic submucosal dissection-induced ulcers compared to treatment with proton pump inhibitor monotherapy.

Indexed as

endoscopic submucosal dissectionmucosal protective agentsrebamipideulcer

Identifiers

PMID25759512
PMCPMC4345174
OpenAlexW2082083712

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.