ReviewCureus2026
Comparison of the Safety of Proton Pump Inhibitors and Histamine Type 2-Receptor Antagonists in the Prevention of Gastrointestinal Complications.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine type 2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) in preventing gastrointestinal (GI) complications, particularly bleeding, in high-risk patient populations, including ICU patients and individuals taking aspirin, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). A literature review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane-aligned principles. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and large cohort studies published between 1997 and 2025 were included. Searches were performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and SpringerLink to identify studies comparing PPIs and H2RAs with respect to prophylactic effectiveness and adverse outcomes, including infections, pneumonia, and mortality. Data were synthesized narratively with emphasis on studies of higher methodological quality. Overall, the reviewed evidence generally suggested that PPIs reduce clinically significant bleeding more effectively than H2RAs in ICU settings and in patients receiving aspirin or DAPT. Among NSAID users, PPIs were also more effective for ulcer healing and prevention. In contrast, several analyses indicated higher rates of certain adverse events among PPI recipients, particularly infections and possibly pneumonia, while H2RAs appeared to have a more favorable safety profile for these outcomes. Mortality findings were inconsistent across studies, with some large trials reporting no meaningful differences between drug classes. In conclusion, PPIs may offer greater protection against bleeding and ulceration than H2RAs but can be associated with a higher risk of selected adverse events. Prophylactic therapy should be individualized by balancing expected benefits with patient-specific risks, including infection risk and concurrent antiplatelet therapy.
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.