↓ Skip to main content

When is proton pump inhibitor use appropriate?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, February 2017
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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
When is proton pump inhibitor use appropriate?
Published in
BMC Medicine, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0804-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rena Yadlapati, Peter J. Kahrilas

Abstract

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy is commonly used outside of Food and Drug Administration indication for a broad range of conditions such as extra-esophageal reflux and PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia. While this may be appropriate in some scenarios, it has also resulted in widespread inappropriate PPI use. At the same time, data suggesting adverse effects of long-term PPI therapy are multiplying, albeit mainly from low quality studies. The systematic review by Scarpignato et al. (BMC Med 14:179, 2016) addresses this dilemma with a comprehensive analysis of the risks and benefits of PPI use. The authors concluded that, while PPIs are highly efficacious in erosive acid-peptic disorders, efficacy is not equaled in other conditions. In some instances, they found no supportive evidence of benefit. With respect to side effects, they indicated that the questionable harms associated with PPI therapy do not outweigh the benefits afforded by appropriate PPI use. However, inappropriate PPI use results in increased healthcare costs and unnecessary exposure to potential adverse effects. Ideally, PPI therapy should be personalized, based on indication, effectiveness, patient preference, and risk assessment.Please see related article: http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-016-0718-z .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 124 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Student > Master 12 10%
Other 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 38 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 40%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 16 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 39 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 29 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,254,261
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#876
of 4,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,762
of 324,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#20
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 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 4,079 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 324,851 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 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 70% of its contemporaries.