SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Summary of the best evidence for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To gather, assess, and integrate the most reliable evidence regarding stress ulcer prevention in critically ill individuals, thus offering guidance for clinical application. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed across various Chinese and English platforms and databases, such as UpToDate, National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Guidelines International Network (GIN), Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST), the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, Wangfang, VIP, Sinomed, the Full-text Database of Chinese Medical Journals, and Medlive. This search encompassed clinical decision-making tools, guidelines, systematic reviews, evidence summaries, expert consensus documents, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and cohort studies. Additionally, a search for gray literature was carried out using Opengrey and DANS. The timeframe for the search extended from the establishment of each database up to April 14, 2026. Two researchers carried out independent assessments of literature quality, evidence extraction, and synthesis. Results: In total, 29 publications were analyzed, which included 1 clinical decision document, 6 guidelines, 4 expert consensus statements, 2 systematic reviews, 13 meta-analyses, 2 cohort studies, and 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT). Ultimately, 32 key evidence statements were compiled across seven categories: risk factors, indications for prophylaxis and decision-making, selection of agents and methods of administration, integrated decision-making concerning enteral nutrition and stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), possible harms and adverse events, diagnosis and monitoring, as well as special populations and scenarios. In summary, this research consolidates the most reliable information regarding the prevention of stress ulcers (SUs) in patients with critical illnesses. Healthcare providers can utilize this evidence in a tailored way, taking into account the specific clinical situation and the preferences of the patient. The results offer a solid evidence-based framework for standardizing clinical approaches and enhancing patient outcomes. Systematic review registration: The systematic review can be found at http://ebn.nursing.fudan.edu.cn/home, and its registration number is "ES202610400."
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.