Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31907166›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2020

Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Ying Wang, Zhikang Ye, Long Ge, Reed A C Siemieniuk, Xin Wang, Yingkai Wang, Liangying Hou, Zhuo Ma, Thomas Agoritsas, Per Olav Vandvik and 4 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07257926 (Prevention of Delayed Post-polypectomy Bleeding by Endoscopic Sucralfate Spray in High-risk Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 44 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

NCT07257926 phase4not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Prevention of Delayed Post-polypectomy Bleeding by Endoscopic Sucralfate Spray in High-risk Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorNational Cheng-Kung University HospitalRan2025 to 2027Enrolled160ConditionsBleeding After GI EndoscopyArmsSucralfate, Clip
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

14 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Ying WangDepartment of Pharmacy, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Zhikang YeDepartment of Pharmacy, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Long GeEvidence Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Reed A C SiemieniukDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Xin WangDepartment of Pharmacy, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yingkai WangDepartment of Pharmacy, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Liangying HouEvidence Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Zhuo MaDepartment of Pharmacy, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Thomas AgoritsasDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Per Olav VandvikInstitute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Norway.
Anders PernerDepartment of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Morten H MøllerDepartment of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Gordon H GuyattDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Lihong LiuDepartment of Pharmacy, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4817-3173
Capital Medical University · CNCopenhagen University Hospital · DKLanzhou University · CNImpact · CAUniversity Hospital of Geneva · CHUniversity of Oslo · NOUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine, in critically ill patients, the relative impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, or no gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (or stress ulcer prophylaxis) on outcomes important to patients.

designSystematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature up to March 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES AND

methodsWe included randomised controlled trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee (

resultsSeventy two trials including 12 660 patients proved eligible. For patients at highest risk (>8%) or high risk (4-8%) of bleeding, both PPIs and H2RAs probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding compared with placebo or no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.89), 3.3% fewer for highest risk and 2.3% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 0.46 (0.27 to 0.79), 4.6% fewer for highest risk and 3.1% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty). Both may increase the risk of pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 1.39 (0.98 to 2.10), 5.0% more, low certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 1.26 (0.89 to 1.85), 3.4% more, low certainty). It is likely that neither affect mortality (PPIs 1.06 (0.90 to 1.28), 1.3% more, moderate certainty; H2RAs 0.96 (0.79 to 1.19), 0.9% fewer, moderate certainty). Otherwise, results provided no support for any affect on mortality,

conclusionsFor higher risk critically ill patients, PPIs and H2RAs likely result in important reductions in gastrointestinal bleeding compared with no prophylaxis; for patients at low risk, the reduction in bleeding may be unimportant. Both PPIs and H2RAs may result in important increases in pneumonia. Variable quality evidence suggested no important effects of interventions on mortality or other in-hospital morbidity outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019126656.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal HemorrhageCritical IllnessHistamine H2 AntagonistsHumansPatient SelectionProton Pump InhibitorsRisk AdjustmentHistamine H2 AntagonistsProton Pump Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID31907166
PMCPMC7190057
OpenAlexW2998172629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.