Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32833040›Full record

SynthesisIntensive care medicine2020

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

Ying Wang, Long Ge, Zhikang Ye, Reed A Siemieniuk, Annika Reintam Blaser, Xin Wang, Anders Perner, Morten H Møller, Waleed Alhazzani, Deborah Cook and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Intensive care medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. REVISE:BMJ open · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Assessment of adherence to the national stress ulcer prophylaxis guidelines: A cross-sectional analysis.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Ying WangDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Long GeEvidence Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Zhikang YeDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Reed A SiemieniukDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Annika Reintam BlaserDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Xin WangDepartment of Pharmacy, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Anders PernerDepartment of Intensive Care, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Morten H MøllerDepartment of Intensive Care, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Waleed AlhazzaniDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Deborah CookDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Gordon H GuyattDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. guyatt@mcmaster.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2352-5718
Impact · CAUniversity of Copenhagen · DKCapital Medical University · CNLanzhou University · CNUniversity of Lucerne · CHUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMotivated by a new randomized trial (the PEPTIC trial) that raised the issue of an increase in mortality with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) relative to histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), we updated our prior systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) addressing the impact of pharmacological gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients.

methodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. We performed Bayesian random-effects NMA and conducted analyses using all PEPTIC data as well as a restricted analysis using only PEPTIC data from high compliance centers. We used the GRADE approach to quantify absolute effects and assess the certainty of evidence.

resultsSeventy-four trials enrolling 39 569 patients proved eligible. Both PPIs (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% credible interval 0.93 to 1.14, moderate certainty) and H2RAs (RR 0.98, 0.89 to 1.08, moderate certainty) probably have little or no impact on mortality compared with no prophylaxis. There may be no important difference between PPIs and H2RAs on mortality (RR 1.05, 0.97 to 1.14, low certainty), the 95% credible interval of the complete analysis has not excluded an important increase in mortality with PPIs. Both PPIs (RR 0.46, 0.29 to 0.66) and H2RAs (RR 0.67, 0.48 to 0.94) probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; the magnitude of reduction is probably greater in PPIs than H2RAs (RR 0.69, 0.45 to 0.93), and the difference may be important in higher, but not lower bleeding risk patients. PPIs (RR 1.08, 0.88 to 1.45, low certainty) and H2RAs (RR 1.07, 0.85 to 1.37, low certainty) may have no important impact on pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis.

conclusionThis updated NMA confirmed that PPIs and H2RAs are most likely to have a similar effect on mortality compared to each other and compared to no prophylaxis; however, the possibility that PPIs may slightly increase mortality cannot be excluded (low certainty evidence). PPIs and H2RAs probably achieve important reductions in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; for higher bleeding risk patients, the greater benefit of PPIs over H2RAs may be important. PPIs or H2RAs may not result in important increases in pneumonia but the certainty of evidence is low.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessHistamine H2 AntagonistsAdultBayes TheoremGastrointestinal HemorrhageHumansProton Pump InhibitorsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHistamine H2 AntagonistsProton Pump InhibitorsGastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxisHistamine-2 receptor antagonistsNetwork meta-analysisProton pump inhibitorsStress ulcer prophylaxisSucralfate

Identifiers

PMID32833040
OpenAlexW3080737228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.