SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2020
Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
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.
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.
Prevention of Delayed Post-polypectomy Bleeding by Endoscopic Sucralfate Spray in High-risk Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
44 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Summary of the best evidence for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled 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: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.Intensive care medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Role of Proton Pump Inhibitor as Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Sick Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Indian pediatrics · 2025Trial
- Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Critical Care: Evidence, Risk Stratification, and Clinical Implications.Cureus · 2026Review
- What can we learn from network meta-analyses published in top medical journals.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- OSCARinED: a policy and practice review of an emergency department-based critical care framework for critically ill non-trauma patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Topical tranexamic acid and sucralfate prevent delayed bleeding after endoscopic sphincterotomy: a randomized controlled trial (with video).Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Clinical and financial outcomes associated with gastrointestinal complications among patients with type B aortic dissection.Surgery open science · 2025Article
- Protocol for an economic evaluation alongside the Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions (E-REVISE) trial.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Article
- Independent effects of the hemoglobin-to-red blood cell distribution width ratio on 180-day mortality in critically ill patients with Gastrointestinal bleeding: analysis from the MIMIC-IV database.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Heterogeneous treatment effects of stress ulcer prophylaxis among ICU patients at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Prophylactic proton pump inhibitor usage and new-onset acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: a retrospective analysis.Clinical kidney journal · 2025Article
- A predictive model for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock during hospitalization.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- 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
- Predicting the risk of postoperative gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with Type A aortic dissection based on an interpretable machine learning model.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Association between preoperative proton pump inhibitor use and postoperative acute kidney injury in patients undergoing major surgery.Renal failure · 2024Article
- Biopsy-Proven Gastric Pathological Findings in Mechanically Ventilated Intensive Care Unit Patients.Cureus · 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
14 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.