↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
54 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
95 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
239 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
Published in
Critical Care, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1305-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fayez Alshamsi, Emilie Belley-Cote, Deborah Cook, Saleh A. Almenawer, Zuhoor Alqahtani, Dan Perri, Lehana Thabane, Awad Al-Omari, Kim Lewis, Gordon Guyatt, Waleed Alhazzani

Abstract

The relative efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) compared to histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) should guide their use in reducing bleeding risk in the critically ill. We searched the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACPJC, clinical trials registries, and conference proceedings through November 2015 without language or publication date restrictions. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PPIs vs H2RAs for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill adults for clinically important bleeding, overt gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, nosocomial pneumonia, mortality, ICU length of stay and Clostridium difficile infection were included. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess our confidence in the evidence for each outcome. In 19 trials enrolling 2117 patients, PPIs were more effective than H2RAs in reducing the risk of clinically important GI bleeding (RR 0.39; 95 % CI 0.21, 0.71; P = 0.002; I (2)  = 0 %, moderate confidence) and overt GI bleeding (RR 0.48; 95 % CI 0.34, 0.66; P < 0.0001; I (2)  = 3 %, moderate confidence). PPI use did not significantly affect risk of pneumonia (RR 1.12; 95 % CI 0.86, 1.46; P = 0.39; I (2)  = 2 %, low confidence), mortality (RR 1.05; 95 % CI 0.87, 1.27; P = 0.61; I (2)  = 0 %, moderate confidence), or ICU length of stay (mean difference (MD), -0.38 days; 95 % CI -1.49, 0.74; P = 0.51; I (2)  = 30 %, low confidence). No RCT reported Clostridium difficile infection. PPIs were superior to H2RAs in preventing clinically important and overt GI bleeding, without significantly increasing the risk of pneumonia or mortality. Their impact on Clostridium difficile infection is yet to be determined.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 239 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 234 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 18%
Researcher 27 11%
Other 25 10%
Student > Bachelor 25 10%
Student > Postgraduate 20 8%
Other 53 22%
Unknown 47 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 96 40%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 53 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 2%
Other 15 6%
Unknown 53 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2022.
All research outputs
#933,642
of 22,783,848 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#761
of 6,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,885
of 298,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#25
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,783,848 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,047 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,846 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.