↓ Skip to main content

Strategies for Effective Discontinuation of Proton Pump Inhibitors

Overview of attention for article published in Current Gastroenterology Reports, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#34 of 600)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
40 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Strategies for Effective Discontinuation of Proton Pump Inhibitors
Published in
Current Gastroenterology Reports, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11894-018-0632-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Judith Kim, John W. Blackett, Daniela Jodorkovsky

Abstract

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective for many conditions but are often overprescribed. Recent concerns about long-term risks have made patients re-evaluate their need to take PPIs chronically, though these population-based studies have methodological weaknesses. The goal of this review is to provide evidenced-based strategies for discontinuation of PPI therapy. Given that some patients experience rebound symptoms when abruptly stopping continuous PPI therapy due to its effect on hypergastrinemia, strategies focus on avoiding rebound. Tapering the PPI and then initiating a "step-down" approach with the use of alternative medications may be effective. "On-demand therapy" provides patients with the option to take intermittent PPI courses, reducing overall use and cost while preserving patient satisfaction. It is important for providers to consider ambulatory pH or pH/impedance testing to rule out diagnoses that may require alternative medications like neuromodulators. A number of studies reviewed here can provide guidance in counseling patients on PPI discontinuation. It is important for the provider to obtain a baseline needs assessment for PPI therapy and to elucidate predictors of difficulty in discontinuation prior to initiating a strategy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 19%
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Researcher 5 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 46%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 6 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 07 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,503,926
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Current Gastroenterology Reports
#34
of 600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,569
of 343,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Gastroenterology Reports
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 343,103 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them