Objective To determine, in critically ill patients, the relative impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, or no gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (or stress ulcer prophylaxis) on outcomes important to patients. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature up to March 2019. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods We included randomised controlled trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided critical oversight of the systematic review, including identifying outcomes important to patients. We performed random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. When results differed between low risk and high risk of bias studies, we used the former as best estimates. Results Seventy two trials including 12 660 patients proved eligible. For patients at highest risk (>8%) or high risk (4-8%) of bleeding, both PPIs and H2RAs probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding compared with placebo or no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.89), 3.3% fewer for highest risk and 2.3% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 0.46 (0.27 to 0.79), 4.6% fewer for highest risk and 3.1% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty). Both may increase the risk of pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 1.39 (0.98 to 2.10), 5.0% more, low certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 1.26 (0.89 to 1.85), 3.4% more, low certainty). It is likely that neither affect mortality (PPIs 1.06 (0.90 to 1.28), 1.3% more, moderate certainty; H2RAs 0.96 (0.79 to 1.19), 0.9% fewer, moderate certainty). Otherwise, results provided no support for any affect on mortality, Clostridium difficile infection, length of intensive care stay, length of hospital stay, or duration of mechanical ventilation (varying certainty of evidence). Conclusions For higher risk critically ill patients, PPIs and H2RAs likely result in important reductions in gastrointestinal bleeding compared with no prophylaxis; for patients at low risk, the reduction in bleeding may be unimportant. Both PPIs and H2RAs may result in important increases in pneumonia. Variable quality evidence suggested no important effects of interventions on mortality or other in-hospital morbidity outcomes. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019126656.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/368/bmj.l6744.full.pdf

Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Motivated by a new randomized trial (the PEPTIC trial) that raised the issue of an increase in mortality with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) relative to histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), we updated our prior systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) addressing the impact of pharmacological gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients. We searched for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. We performed Bayesian random-effects NMA and conducted analyses using all PEPTIC data as well as a restricted analysis using only PEPTIC data from high compliance centers. We used the GRADE approach to quantify absolute effects and assess the certainty of evidence. Seventy-four trials enrolling 39 569 patients proved eligible. Both PPIs (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% credible interval 0.93 to 1.14, moderate certainty) and H2RAs (RR 0.98, 0.89 to 1.08, moderate certainty) probably have little or no impact on mortality compared with no prophylaxis. There may be no important difference between PPIs and H2RAs on mortality (RR 1.05, 0.97 to 1.14, low certainty), the 95% credible interval of the complete analysis has not excluded an important increase in mortality with PPIs. Both PPIs (RR 0.46, 0.29 to 0.66) and H2RAs (RR 0.67, 0.48 to 0.94) probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; the magnitude of reduction is probably greater in PPIs than H2RAs (RR 0.69, 0.45 to 0.93), and the difference may be important in higher, but not lower bleeding risk patients. PPIs (RR 1.08, 0.88 to 1.45, low certainty) and H2RAs (RR 1.07, 0.85 to 1.37, low certainty) may have no important impact on pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis. This updated NMA confirmed that PPIs and H2RAs are most likely to have a similar effect on mortality compared to each other and compared to no prophylaxis; however, the possibility that PPIs may slightly increase mortality cannot be excluded (low certainty evidence). PPIs and H2RAs probably achieve important reductions in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; for higher bleeding risk patients, the greater benefit of PPIs over H2RAs may be important. PPIs or H2RAs may not result in important increases in pneumonia but the certainty of evidence is low.

Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer in women worldwide. Though improved treatments and prolonged overall survival, breast cancer survivors (BCSs) persistently suffer from various unmet supportive care needs (USCNs) throughout the disease. This scoping review aims to synthesize current literature regarding USCNs among BCSs.This study followed a scoping review framework. Articles were retrieved from Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Medline from inception through June 2023, as well as reference lists of relevant literature. Peer-reviewed journal articles were included if USCNs among BCSs were reported. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were adopted to screen articles' titles and abstracts as well as to entirely assess any potentially pertinent records by two independent researchers. Methodological quality was independently appraised following Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools. Content analytic approach and meta-analysis were performed for qualitative and quantitative studies respectively. Results were reported according to the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews.A total of 10,574 records were retrieved and 77 studies were included finally. The overall risk of bias was low to moderate. The self-made questionnaire was the most used instrument, followed by The Short-form Supportive Care Needs Survey questionnaire (SCNS-SF34). A total of 16 domains of USCNs were finally identified. Social support (74%), daily activity (54%), sexual/intimacy (52%), fear of cancer recurrence/ spreading (50%), and information support (45%) were the top unmet supportive care needs. Information needs and psychological/emotional needs appeared most frequently. The USCNs was found to be significantly associated with demographic factors, disease factors, and psychological factors.BCSs are experiencing a large number of USCNs in fearing of cancer recurrence, daily activity, sexual/intimacy, psychology and information, with proportions ranging from 45% to 74%. Substantial heterogeneity in study populations and assessment tools was observed. There is a need for further research to identify a standard evaluation tool targeted to USCNs on BCSs. Effective interventions based on guidelines should be formulated and conducted to decrease USCNs among BCSs in the future. 

/pdf/unmet-supportive-care-needs-of-breast-cancer-survivors-a-d2etn4x6.pdf

Unmet supportive care needs of breast cancer survivors: a systematic scoping review

Objectives To achieve optimal survival care outcomes, all healthcare services must be tailored to patients’ specific needs, preferences and concerns throughout the survival period. This study aimed to identify supportive care needs from the point of view of breast cancer survivors. Methods Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for reporting systematic reviews, a comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus was performed. The inclusion criteria were studies published from inception to the end of January 2022, covering all stages of breast cancer. The exclusion criteria were mixed-type studies relating to cancer, such as case reports, commentaries, editorials and systematic reviews, as well as studies that assessed patients’ needs during cancer treatment. Two quality assessment tools were used for the qualitative and quantitative studies. Results Of the 13 095 records retrieved, 40 studies, including 20 qualitative and 20 quantitative studies, were retained for this review. Survivors’ supportive care needs were classified into 10 dimensions and 40 subdimensions. The most frequently mentioned supportive care needs of survivors were psychological/emotional needs (N=32), health system/informational needs (N=30), physical and daily activities (N=19), and interpersonal/intimacy needs (N=19). Conclusions This systematic review highlights several essential needs for breast cancer survivors. Supportive programmes should be designed in order to take into consideration all aspects of these needs, particularly psychological, emotional and informational needs.

/pdf/breast-cancer-survivors-supportive-care-needs-systematic-1ogs3b87.pdf

Breast cancer survivors–supportive care needs: systematic review

Goals and background Stress ulcer prophylaxis has been shown to lower gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) rates. Various agents have been studied, and the optimal strategy continues to be contested. This study evaluates the efficacy between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2-receptor antagonists. Small sample sizes and methodology flaws limited prior studies. Study A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials reporting the use of PPI and histamine-2-receptor antagonist reporting rates of GIB and standardized intensive care outcomes. Risk ratios (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A trial sequential analysis was performed to guard against errors. Results A total of 14 randomized controlled trials of 28,526 patients with a mean age of 57.83±17.35 years and 30.82% females. In our pooled analysis, PPI outperformed its comparator (RR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.57-0.82) in clinically significant GIB. PPI re-demonstrated significant reduction in overt GIB (RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.39-0.97). No differences between groups was noted toward all-cause mortality (RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.00-1.10) or incidence of pneumonia (RR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.82-1.51). Duration of stay (SMD: 0.07; 95% CI: -0.04-0.17) and ventilator days (SMD: 0.01; 95% CI: -0.01-0.04) were indifferent between the groups. Conclusions Among critically ill patients, PPI was associated with reduced clinically significant or overt GIB. No differences in pneumonia were seen with the use of either agent. Trial sequential analysis for clinically significant GIB ruled out the risk for false-positive results, and thereby it is unlikely that future trials will affect our conclusions.

Proton Pump Inhibitors Versus Histamine-2-Receptor Antagonists for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients: A Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of esomeprazole in preventing upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in critically ill Chinese patients, using cimetidine as an active comparator....

Prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill Chinese patients: a randomized, double-blind study evaluating esomeprazole and cimetidine

Breast cancer survivors (BCSs) often have potential unmet needs. Identification of the specific needs of BCSs is very significant for medical service provision. This study aimed to (1) investigate the unmet needs and quality of life (QoL) of BCSs in China, (2) explore the diverse factors associated with their unmet needs, and (3) assess the association between their unmet needs and QoL.A multicentre, cross-sectional survey was administered to 1210 Chinese BCSs. The Cancer Survivor Profile-Breast Cancer and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast scale were administered to survivors who gave informed consent to participate. Data were analysed using t-test, ANOVA, multiple regression analysis, and Pearson correlations.The 1192 participants completed questionnaires (response rate 98.51%). Our study reveals that the most prevalent unmet needs were in the 'symptom burden domain'. The unmet needs of BCSs depend on eleven factors; age, time since diagnosis, education level, occupation, payment, family income status, stage of cancer, treatment, family history of cancer, pain, and physical activities. To ensure the provision of high-quality survivorship care and a high satisfaction level, more attention should be paid to actively identifying and addressing the unmet needs of BCSs. The problem areas identified in the Cancer Survivor Profile for breast cancer were negatively associated with all subscales of QoL except the health behaviour domain, with the correlation coefficient ranging from - 0.815 to - 0.011.Chinese BCSs exhibit a high demand for unmet needs in this study, and the most prevalent unmet needs were in the 'symptom burden domain'. There was a significant association between patients' unmet needs (as defined in the Cancer Survivor Profile for breast cancer) and QoL. Future research should focus on enhancements to survivorship or follow-up care to address unmet needs and further improve QoL. 

/pdf/unmet-needs-of-1210-chinese-breast-cancer-survivors-and-1fl0lm7j.pdf

Unmet needs of 1210 Chinese breast cancer survivors and associated factors: a multicentre cross-sectional study

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Ying Xia

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill Chinese patients: a randomized, double-blind study evaluating esomeprazole and cimetidine

Unmet needs of 1210 Chinese breast cancer survivors and associated factors: a multicentre cross-sectional study