SynthesisDigestive diseases (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Association between Proton Pump Inhibitor and
Synthesis in Digestive diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a leading cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea in critically ill patients. This meta-analysis evaluated whether proton pump inhibitor-based stress ulcer prophylaxis increases CDI risk and examined associated outcomes, including mortality, gastrointestinal bleeding, and other clinical effects in ICU patients.
methodsThe study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251176540). Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched (2007 - March 2025) for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing PPIs with H
resultsEight studies (∼58,000 patients) met inclusion criteria. PPI use did not significantly increase CDI risk (OR 1.12; p = 0.49, I2 = 73%) or mortality (RR 1.01; p = 0.70) but significantly reduced gastrointestinal bleeding risk (RR 0.60; p = 0.02), particularly versus H
conclusionIn ICU patients, PPI prophylaxis was associated with reduced gastrointestinal bleeding but showed no clear benefit for mortality, ICU or hospital length of stay, or duration of mechanical ventilation. The available evidence does not allow firm conclusions regarding CDI risk because of substantial heterogeneity and very low certainty of evidence. Compared with H2RAs, PPIs provide greater bleeding protection, although possible signals of longer ICU stay and slightly higher mortality require further investigation.
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.