ArticleJournal of pharmacy & pharmaceutical sciences : a publication of the Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Societe canadienne des sciences pharmaceutiques2025
Optimizing stress ulcer prophylaxis practices and reducing associated costs in intensive care units: a non-randomized controlled study.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & pharmaceutical sciences : a publication of the Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Societe canadienne des sciences pharmaceutiques, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study evaluated the use of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), assessed the costs associated with inappropriate use, and highlighted the impact of clinical pharmacists on improving adherence to the SUP guidelines. Method: A prospective, non-randomized controlled study was carried out in two intensive care units (ICUs) of a training and research hospital between 1 June 2023 and 1 December 2023. Routine care services were provided for the observation group (OG) patients. In the guideline group (GG) patients, SUP management and routine care were performed according to ASHP guidelines. The physician and clinical pharmacist jointly evaluated the patients to determine the suitability of their SUP indications. Adherence rates to ASHP guidelines and the costs associated with nonadherence were evaluated. Results: A total of 196 patients were included in the study: 121 in the OG and 75 in the GG. A total of 54.6% of the patients were male, and the reason for hospitalization was mainly surgery (52.6%). SUP use was higher in OG (100%) than in GG (42.6%) (p < 0.001). The indication rate according to the ASHP guidelines was significantly higher in the GG group (100%) than in the OG group (54.5%) (p < 0.001). Dosage form adherence was significantly lower in the OG (0%) than in the GG (100%) (p < 0.001). The costs associated with proton pump inhibitor use for inappropriate indications and incorrect dosage forms were $60 versus $0 (p < 0.001) and $321 versus $0 (p < 0.001) in OG and GG, respectively. Overall, cost savings of $327 were achieved in the GG group. Conclusion: Inappropriate SUP use is common in the ICUs. Adequate adherence to guidelines and proactive involvement of clinical pharmacists may reduce inappropriate SUP in ICUs and the associated costs.
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.