SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2016
Is the era of intravenous proton pump inhibitors coming to an end in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers? Meta-analysis of the published literature.
Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 5 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease 2026.Journal of gastroenterology · 2026Guideline
- Guideline for Medication Management of Distressing Symptoms in Older Patients Receiving End-of-Life Palliative Care.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2026Guideline
- Oral Proton Pump Inhibitors May Be as Effective as Intravenous in Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2021Pooled it
- Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease 2020.Journal of gastroenterology · 2021Guideline
- Is the era of intravenous proton pump inhibitors coming to an end in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers? Meta-analysis of the published literature.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Pooled it
- [Clinical Management of Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2022Review
- Clinical Intervention Increases Rational Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors in the General Surgery Department.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Prognosis of variceal and non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in already hospitalised patients: Results from a French prospective cohort.United European gastroenterology journal · 2021Article
- Effective and safe proton pump inhibitor therapy in acid-related diseases - A position paper addressing benefits and potential harms of acid suppression.BMC medicine · 2016Review
- Editorial: Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitors for Bleeding Peptic Ulcer: What is the Most Cost-Effective Approach?The American journal of gastroenterology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsOral and intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are equipotent in raising gastric pH. However, it is not known whether oral PPIs can replace intravenous PPIs in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare oral and intravenous PPIs among patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. A search of all major databases and relevant journals from inception to April 2015, without a restriction on languages, was performed.
resultsA total of 859 patients from seven randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Similar pooled outcome measures were demonstrated between the two groups in terms of oral PPIs vs. intravenous PPIs in the rate of recurrent bleeding within the 30-day follow-up period [risk ratio = 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.58, 1.39; P = 0.62; I(2) = 0%). In terms of the rate of mortality, both oral and intravenous PPIs showed similar outcomes, and the pooled risk ratio was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.29, 2.71; P = 0.82; I(2) = 0%). Likewise, no significant difference was detected in the need for blood transfusion and length of hospital stay; the pooled mean differences were -0.14 (95% CI: -0.39, 0.12; P = 0.29; I(2) = 32%) and -0.60 (95% CI: -1.42, 0.23; P = 0.16; I(2) = 79%), respectively.
conclusionsOur results suggest that oral PPIs are a feasible, safe alternative to intravenous PPIs in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers, and may be able to replace intravenous PPIs as the treatment of choice in these patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.