Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critical illness: a Canadian survey
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, ISSN: 1496-8975, Vol: 63, Issue: 6, Page: 718-724
2016
- 33Citations
- 51Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations33
- Citation Indexes28
- 28
- CrossRef7
- Policy Citations3
- Policy Citation3
- Clinical Citations2
- PubMed Guidelines2
- Captures51
- Readers51
- 39
- 12
Article Description
Purpose: Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) using histamine-2-receptor antagonists has been a standard of care in intensive care units (ICUs) for four decades. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are increasingly used despite apparently lower background rates of gastrointestinal bleeding and growing concerns about PPI-associated complications. Our objective was to understand the views and prescribing habits amongst Canadian physicians regarding SUP in the ICU and to gauge interest in a future randomized-controlled trial (RCT). Methods: We created a short self-administered survey about SUP for critically ill adults, evaluated its clinical sensibility, and pilot tested the instrument. We surveyed all physician members of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group (CCCTG) by e-mail and sent reminders three and five weeks later. Results: We received 94 of 111 (85%) surveys from the validated respondent pool between May and June, 2015. Respondents reported use of SUP most commonly in patients 1) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (62, 66%), 2) expected to be ventilated for ≥ two days (25, 27%), or 3) receiving mechanical ventilation but nil per os (NPO) (20, 21%). Stress ulcer prophylaxis is discontinued when patients no longer receive mechanical ventilation (75%), no longer are NPO (22%), or are discharged from the ICU (19%). Stress ulcer prophylaxis involves PPIs in 68% of centres. Most respondents endorsed the need for a large rigorous RCT of PPI vs placebo to understand the risks and benefits of this practice. Conclusions: Stress ulcer prophylaxis is reportedly used primarily for the duration of mechanical ventilation. The CCCTG physicians believe that a placebo-controlled RCT is needed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of contemporary SUP with PPIs.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84959126830&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12630-016-0612-3; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26911559; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12630-016-0612-3; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12630-016-0612-3; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12630-016-0612-3
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know