ArticleWorld journal of emergency medicine2016
Comparison of intravenous pantoprazole and ranitidine in patients with dyspepsia presented to the emergency department: a randomized, double blind, controlled trial.
Article in World journal of emergency medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Design characteristics of comparative effectiveness trials for the relief of symptomatic dyspepsia: A systematic review.Integrative medicine research · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare pantoprazole, a proton-pomp inhibitors (PPIs), and ranitidine, a H2 receptor antagonists (H2RA), in ceasing dyspeptic symptoms in the emergency department (ED).
methodsThis randomized, double-blinded study compared the effectiveness of 50 mg ranitidine (Ulcuran(®)) and 40 mg pantoprazole (Pantpas(®)), given in a 100 mL saline solution by an intravenous rapid infusion within 2-4 minutes in patients with dyspepsia presented to the ED. Pain intensity was measured at baseline, 30 and 60 minutes after the drug administration.
resultsA total of 72 patients were eligible for the study. Of these patients, 2 were excluded from the study because the initial visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were under 20 mm and 4 were excluded from the statistical analysis because of being diagnosed as having other causes of epigastric pain despite being allocated to one of the study groups. Thirty-three patients in the pantoprazole group and 33 patients in the ranitidine group were analyzed ultimately. The mean age of the patients was 36.6±15 years, and 26 (39.4%) patients were male. Both of the groups reduced pain effectively at 30 [27.6±28 (18 to 37) vs. 28.3±23 (20 to 37), respectively] and 60 minutes [39.6±39 (26 to 53) vs. 42.3±25 (33 to 51), respectively]. There were 13 (39.4%) patients in the pantoprazole group and 8 (24.2%) patients in the ranitidine group who required additional drug at the end of the study (P=0.186).
conclusionIntravenous pantoprazole and ranitidine are not superior to each other in ceasing dyspeptic symptoms at 30 and 60 minutes in the ED.
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.