ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
An educational intervention to optimize use of proton pump inhibitors in a Greek university hospital.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inappropriate prescribing of drugs for peptic ulcer and gastro-esophageal reflux disease remains a matter of concern: Results from the LAPTOP-PPI cluster randomized trial.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Prevalence ofAnnals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMisuse of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is an alarming issue for patients and healthcare systems.
methodsWe conducted a 3-phase interventional, prospective study in a Greek university hospital. During Phase I, we collected data from patients' records to evaluate the appropriate use of PPIs. During Phase II, educational seminars about the proper use of PPIs were offered to the medical staff. In Phase III we collected data from the records of patients admitted to the hospital department with the highest rate of inappropriate PPI administration during Phase I, to evaluate the efficacy of the intervention. Inappropriate use was defined as either PPI administration without indication, or lack of use despite adequate indication. Appropriateness of PPI use was measured at admission, during hospitalization and at discharge.
resultsThe rate of inappropriate PPI use was higher (51.7% and 48.6%) during hospitalization than at admission (34.9% and 21.9%), but at discharge was similar to pre-hospitalization levels (26.9% and 23.6%), in Phases I and III, respectively. At discharge during Phase I, the inappropriate use of PPIs was significantly higher (odds ratio 3.79, 95% confidence interval 1.98-7.19) for internal medicine patients than for surgical patients. The educational intervention failed to reduce the inappropriate use of PPIs during hospitalization (51.7% vs. 48.6%, P=0.478) or at discharge (26.9% vs. 23.6%, P=0.391) in the internal medicine patients.
conclusionsThe rate of inappropriate PPI use is almost double during hospitalization compared to the rates at admission and at discharge. Implementation of an educational intervention failed to reduce the inappropriate use of PPIs in internal medicine patients.
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.