↓ Skip to main content

Deprescribing versus continuation of chronic proton pump inhibitor use in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
97 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
198 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
Deprescribing versus continuation of chronic proton pump inhibitor use in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011969.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Taline A Boghossian, Farah Joy Rashid, Wade Thompson, Vivian Welch, Paul Moayyedi, Carlos Rojas-Fernandez, Kevin Pottie, Barbara Farrell

Abstract

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are a class of medications that reduce acid secretion and are used for treating many conditions such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), dyspepsia, reflux esophagitis, peptic ulcer disease, and hypersecretory conditions (e.g. Zollinger-Ellison syndrome), and as part of the eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori bacteria. However, approximately 25% to 70% of people are prescribed a PPI inappropriately. Chronic PPI use without reassessment contributes to polypharmacy and puts people at risk of experiencing drug interactions and adverse events (e.g. Clostridium difficile infection, pneumonia, hypomagnesaemia, and fractures). To determine the effects (benefits and harms) associated with deprescribing long-term PPI therapy in adults, compared to chronic daily use (28 days or greater). We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 10), MEDLINE, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). The last date of search was November 2016. We handsearched the reference lists of relevant studies. We screened 2357 articles (2317 identified through search strategy, 40 through other resources). Of these articles, we assessed 89 for eligibility. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials comparing at least one deprescribing modality (e.g. stopping PPI or reducing PPI) with a control consisting of no change in continuous daily PPI use in adult chronic users. Outcomes of interest were: change in gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, drug burden/PPI use, cost/resource use, negative and positive drug withdrawal events, and participant satisfaction. Two review authors independently reviewed and extracted data and completed the risk of bias assessment. A third review author independently confirmed risk of bias assessment. We used Review Manager 5 software for data analysis. We contacted study authors if there was missing information. The review included six trials (n = 1758). Trial participants were aged 48 to 57 years, except for one trial that had a mean age of 73 years. All participants were from the outpatient setting and had either nonerosive reflux disease or milder grades of esophagitis (LA grade A or B). Five trials investigated on-demand deprescribing and one trial examined abrupt discontinuation. There was low quality evidence that on-demand use of PPI may increase risk of 'lack of symptom control' compared with continuous PPI use (risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31 to 2.21), thereby favoring continuous PPI use (five trials, n = 1653). There was a clinically significant reduction in 'drug burden', measured as PPI pill use per week with on-demand therapy (mean difference (MD) -3.79, 95% CI -4.73 to -2.84), favoring deprescribing based on moderate quality evidence (four trials, n = 1152). There was also low quality evidence that on-demand PPI use may be associated with reduced participant satisfaction compared with continuous PPI use. None of the included studies reported cost/resource use or positive drug withdrawal effects. In people with mild GERD, on-demand deprescribing may lead to an increase in GI symptoms (e.g. dyspepsia, regurgitation) and probably a reduction in pill burden. There was a decline in participant satisfaction, although heterogeneity was high. There were insufficient data to make a conclusion regarding long-term benefits and harms of PPI discontinuation, although two trials (one on-demand trial and one abrupt discontinuation trial) reported endoscopic findings in their intervention groups at study end.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 97 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 196 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 34 17%
Unspecified 33 17%
Student > Bachelor 25 13%
Student > Master 25 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 11%
Other 60 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 40%
Unspecified 45 23%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 19 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 9%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 31 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 71. 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 09 August 2019.
All research outputs
#242,258
of 13,590,038 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#612
of 10,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,055
of 257,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#29
of 266 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,590,038 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,646 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. 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 257,584 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 266 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.