↓ Skip to main content

Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors for the Provision of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis: Clinical and Economic Consequences

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
Title
Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors for the Provision of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis: Clinical and Economic Consequences
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, November 2013
DOI 10.1007/s40273-013-0119-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey F. Barletta, David A. Sclar

Abstract

The provision of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) for the prevention of clinically significant bleeding is widely recognized as a crucial component of care in critically ill patients. Nevertheless, SUP is often provided to non-critically ill patients despite a risk for clinically significant bleeding of roughly 0.1 %. The overuse of SUP therefore introduces added risks for adverse drug events and cost, with minimal expected benefit in clinical outcome. Historically, histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) have been the preferred agent for SUP; however, recent data have revealed proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) as the most common modality (76 %). There are no high quality randomized controlled trials demonstrating superiority with PPIs compared with H2RAs for the prevention of clinically significant bleeding associated with stress ulcers. In contrast, PPIs have recently been linked to several adverse effects including Clostridium difficile diarrhea and pneumonia. These complications have substantial economic consequences and have a marked impact on the overall cost effectiveness of PPI therapy. Nevertheless, PPI use remains widespread in patients who are at both high and low risk for clinically significant bleeding. This article will describe the utilization of PPIs for SUP and present the clinical and economic consequences linked to their use/overuse.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Researcher 7 8%
Other 22 25%
Unknown 15 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 43%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 16 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 16 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 26 June 2014.
All research outputs
#3,772,034
of 22,731,677 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#364
of 1,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,761
of 304,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#4
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,731,677 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,815 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 304,136 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.