SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2018
Stress ulcer prophylaxis in intensive care unit patients receiving enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 11 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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between Proton Pump Inhibitor andDigestive diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Recommendations for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Critically Ill Adults: A Contextualized Clinical Practice Guideline From the Saudi Critical Care Society and the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Endorsed by the Kuwait Anesthesia and Critical Care Society.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2026Guideline
- Efficacy of early enteral nutrition in patients with traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Pooled it
- Incidence, timing, and risk factors for development of gastrointestinal bleeding in acute traumatic spinal cord injury: A systematic review.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Summary of the best evidence for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of midazolam compared to fentanyl as adjuvants to hyperbaric bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Pooled it
- Pharmacological interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units: a network meta-analysis.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Pooled it
- Stress ulcer prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors or histamine 2 receptor antagonists in critically ill adults - a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2019Pooled it
- Stress ulcer prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors or histamin-2 receptor antagonists in adult intensive care patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.Intensive care medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos guidelines for stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit.Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva · 2019Guideline
- Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Critical Care: Evidence, Risk Stratification, and Clinical Implications.Cureus · 2026Review
- Association between red blood cell transfusion and subsequent cardiovascular events in patients admitted to the cardiovascular intensive care unit: a single-center retrospective study.Heart and vessels · 2025Article
- Predicting ICU Readmission in Patients With Cerebral Infarction: A Machine Learning Approach Using Neurophysiological and Clinical Data.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
- Article
- Fast diagnosis and successful management of stress-induced ulcer with hemorrhagic shock following staging surgery for ovarian cancer: a case report.Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 2025Article
- Prophylactic proton pump inhibitor use and all-cause mortality in adult sepsis patients: a retrospective analysis based on the MIMIC-IV database.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Risk factors for gastric mucosa lesion in critically ill patients undergoing endoscopy for percutaneous gastrostomy: a case-control study.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Rates of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis Deprescribing in Children Receiving Usual versus High-Dose Corticosteroids in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit with Status Asthmaticus.Hospital pharmacy · 2024Article
- Strategies to Reduce CICU Critical Illness-Related Complications: Adding Information to an (Almost) Evidence-Free Zone.JACC. Advances · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPharmacologic stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is recommended in critically ill patients with high risk of stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. However, as to patients receiving enteral feeding, the preventive effect of SUP is not well-known. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of pharmacologic SUP in enterally fed patients on stress-related GI bleeding and other clinical outcomes.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database from inception through 30 Sep 2017. Eligible trials were RCTs comparing pharmacologic SUP to either placebo or no prophylaxis in enterally fed patients in the ICU. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias were explored.
resultsSeven studies (n = 889 patients) were included. There was no statistically significant difference in GI bleeding (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.31, p = 0.37) between groups. This finding was confirmed by further subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis. In addition, SUP had no effect on overall mortality (RR 1.21; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.56, p = 0.14), Clostridium difficile infection (RR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.25 to 3.19, p = 0.86), length of stay in the ICU (MD 0.04 days; 95% CI, -0.79 to 0.87, p = 0.92), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.38 days; 95% CI, -1.48 to 0.72, p = 0.50), but was associated with an increased risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia (RR 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.27; p = 0.03).
conclusionsOur results suggested that in patients receiving enteral feeding, pharmacologic SUP is not beneficial and combined interventions may even increase the risk of nosocomial pneumonia.
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.