pantoprazole

• blood transfusion requirements

  no effect

  blood transfusion requirements (weighted mean difference -0.53; 95% CI for random effects -1.04 to -0.02)

  PMID:19373423 · one of two readings recorded this

• mortality

  no effect

  mortality (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.81; pooled mortality rates were 1.9% for pantoprazole versus 2.8% for control)

  PMID:19373423 · one of two readings recorded this

• surgical intervention

  decreases

  surgical intervention (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.83; pooled rates were 1.4% in pantoprazole group versus 6.5% in control)

  PMID:19373423 · one of two readings recorded this

• total length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference); mortality (RR), pooled across five RCTs of intravenous pantoprazole after endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer bleeding

  decreases, WMD -1.53; 95% CI -1.91 to -1.16

  Not recorded as a finding: the comparison was against another active treatment

  Overall, there were significant differences in ulcer rebleeding (RR 0.31; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.53; pooled rates were 4.7% for pantoprazole and 15.0% for control), surgical intervention (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.83; pooled rates were 1.4% in pantoprazole group versus 6.5% in control) and total length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference -1.53; 95% CI -1.91 to -1.16), but not on mortality (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.81; pooled mortality rates were 1.9% for pantoprazole versus 2.8% for control) and blood transfusion requirements (weighted mean difference -0.53; 95% CI for random effects -1.04 to -0.02) when compared with control treatments.

  PMID:19373423 · one of two readings recorded this

• total length of hospital stay

  decreases

  total length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference -1.53; 95% CI -1.91 to -1.16)

  PMID:19373423 · one of two readings recorded this

• ulcer rebleeding

  decreases

  ulcer rebleeding (RR 0.31; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.53; pooled rates were 4.7% for pantoprazole and 15.0% for control)

  PMID:19373423 · one of two readings recorded this

• accumulation of pantoprazole after multiple dosing

  no effect

  Graphical comparison of pantoprazole concentrations after single- and multiple-dose administration showed no evidence of accumulation after multiple-dose administration of either dose of pantoprazole in children aged ≥6 through 11 years

  PMID:20852004 · one of two readings recorded this

• accumulation of pantoprazole after multiple dosing

  no effect

  There was no evidence of accumulation after multiple-dose administration of either the 20- or 40-mg dose

  PMID:20852004 · one of two readings recorded this

• apparent oral clearance (CL/F) versus age

  decreases, p = 0.003

  While the association was statistically significant (p = 0.003 for linear regression), it was not considered to be predictive as age accounted for only 22% of the apparent clearance value with a coefficient of determination of 0.22

  PMID:20852004 · one of two readings recorded this

• dose-corrected AUC, 20 mg vs 40 mg

  no effect, p = 0.05

  Cmax and AUC increased with dose and were not significantly different between dose groups (p>0.05) when corrected for dose

  PMID:20852004 · one of two readings recorded this

• dose-corrected AUC (AUCcorr), 20 mg vs 40 mg

  no effect, p = 0.05

  there was not a significant difference between the dose groups (20-mg vs. 40-mg, p>0.05)

  PMID:20852004 · one of two readings recorded this

• dose-corrected Cmax, 20 mg vs 40 mg

  no effect, p = 0.05

  Cmax and AUC increased with dose and were not significantly different between dose groups (p>0.05) when corrected for dose

  PMID:20852004 · one of two readings recorded this

• dose-corrected Cmax (Cmax(corr)), 20 mg vs 40 mg

  no effect, p = 0.05

  there was not a significant difference between the dose groups (20-mg vs. 40-mg, p>0.05)

  PMID:20852004 · one of two readings recorded this

• hourly mean intragastric pH, lansoprazole vs pantoprazole

  unclear

  There were significant differences in the pH values at the time points, between hours 2–14 on day 1, and the time points in hours 1–5, 21 and 22 on day 5

  PMID:22293876 · one of two readings recorded this

• hourly mean intragastric pH, lansoprazole vs pantoprazole

  unclear

  There were significant differences in the pH values at the time points, between hours 2–14 on day 1, and the time points in hours 1–5, 21 and 22 on day 5

  PMID:22293876 · one of two readings recorded this

• mean time with intragastric pH >4

  no effect, p = 0.3304

  109.61±32.15 min vs. 153.42±29.36 min, P=0.3304 for pH 4

  PMID:22293876 · one of two readings recorded this

• mean time with intragastric pH >6

  no effect, p = 0.1706

  211.93±39.18 min vs. 288.43±35.79 min, P=0.1706 for pH 6

  PMID:22293876 · one of two readings recorded this

• percentage of subjects with intragastric pH >4 for at least 12 hours

  The percentages of subjects with intragastric pH>4 for at least 12 hours were 94% and 83% for lansoprazole and pantoprazole, respectively, on day 1

  PMID:22293876 · one of two readings recorded this

• percentage of subjects with intragastric pH >4 for at least 12 hours

  no effect

  and 100% for both lansoprazole and pantoprazole on day 5

  PMID:22293876 · one of two readings recorded this

• percentage of subjects with intragastric pH >6 for at least 16 hours

  The percentages of subjects with intragastric pH>6 for at least 16 hours were 31% and 13% on day 1, and 67% and 43% on day 5 for lansoprazole and pantoprazole, respectively

  PMID:22293876 · one of two readings recorded this

• percentage of subjects with intragastric pH >6 for at least 16 hours

  The percentages of subjects with intragastric pH>6 for at least 16 hours were 31% and 13% on day 1, and 67% and 43% on day 5 for lansoprazole and pantoprazole, respectively

  PMID:22293876 · one of two readings recorded this

• percentage of time with intragastric pH >4, first 4 hours

  increases

  Significantly higher percentages of time with intragastric pH >4 and pH >6 were observed in the subjects treated with lansoprazole than in those treated with pantoprazole during the first 4 hours, on day 1

  PMID:22293876 · one of two readings recorded this

• percentage of time with intragastric pH >6, first 4 hours

  increases

  Significantly higher percentages of time with intragastric pH >4 and pH >6 were observed in the subjects treated with lansoprazole than in those treated with pantoprazole during the first 4 hours, on day 1

  PMID:22293876 · one of two readings recorded this

• adherence (subjects with excellent adherence), both arms

  Adherence was excellent for over 90% subjects in both study arms

  PMID:25298578 · one of two readings recorded this

• GOS scale responder proportion (score 2 or less) and symptom resolution (score 1 or less) at 4 and 8 weeks, mFSSGERD symptom scores, SF-8 physical and mental component scores; lafutidine 10 mg versus pantoprazole 40 mg

  no effect, no statistically significant difference in responder proportion between lafutidine and pantoprazole at weeks 4 and 8

  Not recorded as a finding: the comparison was against another active treatment

  At the end of both week 4 and week 8 after commencement of treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of responders between the two treatment groups (week 4: lafutidine 45.61% vs. pantoprazole 48.33%, P = 0.854; week 8: lafutidine 52.63% vs. pantoprazole 56.67%; P = 0.712).

  PMID:25298578 · one of two readings recorded this

• mFSSGERD symptom scores (reflux, dysmotility, pain), pre- vs post-treatment

  decreases

  Patients in both the treatment groups showed significant reduction in symptom scores over 4 and 8 weeks in mFSSGERD scale (reflux symptoms, dysmotility symptoms and pain symptoms)

  PMID:25298578 · one of two readings recorded this

• mFSSGERD symptom scores (reflux, dysmotility, pain), pre- vs post-treatment

  decreases

  Patients in both the treatment groups showed significant reduction in symptom scores over 4 and 8 weeks in mFSSGERD scale (reflux symptoms, dysmotility symptoms and pain symptoms)

  PMID:25298578 · one of two readings recorded this

• proportion of GOS responders (score 2 or less on the 7-point Global Overall Symptom scale) and symptom resolution at 4 and 8 weeks; mFSSGERD scores; SF-8 quality of life; lafutidine 10 mg versus pantoprazole 40 mg

  no effect, week 8 responders lafutidine 52.63% vs pantoprazole 56.67%, p = 0.712

  Not recorded as a finding: the comparison was against another active treatment

  At the end of both week 4 and week 8 after commencement of treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of responders between the two treatment groups (week 4: lafutidine 45.61% vs. pantoprazole 48.33%, P = 0.854; week 8: lafutidine 52.63% vs. pantoprazole 56.67%; P = 0.712).

  PMID:25298578 · one of two readings recorded this

• proportion of responders (GOS score 2 or less)

  no effect, p = 0.854

  week 4: lafutidine 45.61% vs. pantoprazole 48.33%, P = 0.854

  PMID:25298578 · one of two readings recorded this

• proportion of responders (GOS score 2 or less)

  no effect, p = 0.712

  week 8: lafutidine 52.63% vs. pantoprazole 56.67%; P = 0.712

  PMID:25298578 · one of two readings recorded this

• proportion with symptom resolution (GOS score 1 or less)

  no effect, p = 0.197

  week 4 (lafutidine 12.28% vs. pantoprazole 5.00%; P = 0.197)

  PMID:25298578 · one of two readings recorded this

• proportion with symptom resolution (GOS score 1 or less)

  no effect, p = 0.843

  week 8 (lafutidine 33.33% vs. pantoprazole 30%; P = 0.843)

  PMID:25298578 · one of two readings recorded this

• SF-8 physical and mental component summary scores vs pre-treatment

  increases, p = 0.001

  *** indicates P< 0.001 in comparison to corresponding pre-treatment score

  PMID:25298578 · one of two readings recorded this

• dAUC geometric mean ratio, MMF vs EC-MPS (bioequivalence)

  no effect

  geometric mean ratio: 101.25% (90% CI 84.60, 121.17)

  PMID:25913040 · one of two readings recorded this

• dose-adjusted MPA AUC0-12 h (dAUC)

  EC-MPS [dAUC: 43.39 ng h ml(-1) mg(-1) (95% CI 33.44, 53.34)]

  PMID:25913040 · one of two readings recorded this

• dose-adjusted MPA AUC0-12 h (dAUC)

  no effect

  MPA exposure was highest for EC-MPS + PAN [dAUC: 46.30 ng h ml(-1) mg(-1) (95% CI 37.11, 55.49)]

  PMID:25913040 · one of two readings recorded this

• dose-adjusted MPA AUC0-12 h (dAUC)

  no effect

  MMF + PAN intake led to a lowest mean dAUC for MPA of 41.46 ng h ml(-1) mg(-1) [95% confidence interval (CI) 32.38, 50.54]

  PMID:25913040 · one of two readings recorded this

• dose-adjusted MPA AUC0-12h and Cmax, with versus without pantoprazole

  no effect, differences in dAUC and dCmax not significant

  Not recorded as a finding: Only agentless sentence states the null; kept out of claims, covered as exposure claims on tmax

  Differences in dAUC and dose-adjusted maximum concentration (dCmax) were not significant.

  PMID:25913040 · one of two readings recorded this

• dose-adjusted MPA Cmax (dCmax) and dAUC differences with pantoprazole

  no effect

  Differences in dAUC and dose-adjusted maximum concentration (dCmax) were not significant

  PMID:25913040 · one of two readings recorded this

• IMPDH activity

  no effect

  No impact on MPAG pharmacokinetics or IMPDH activity was found

  PMID:25913040 · one of two readings recorded this

• MPA glucuronide (MPAG) pharmacokinetics

  no effect

  No impact on MPAG pharmacokinetics or IMPDH activity was found

  PMID:25913040 · one of two readings recorded this

• MPA tmax

  decreases, p = 0.037

  Simultaneous EC-MPS + PAN intake led to an earlier time to Cmax (tmax) [median: 2.0 h (min-max: 0.5-10.0)] than EC-MPS intake alone [3 h (1.5-12.0); P = 0.037]

  PMID:25913040 · one of two readings recorded this

• MPA tmax

  no effect, p = 0.928

  Tmax was not affected for MMF [1.0 h (0.5-5.0)] ± pantoprazole [1.0 h (0.5-6.0), P = 0.928)

  PMID:25913040 · one of two readings recorded this

• mycophenolic acid dose-adjusted AUC0-12h and dose-adjusted Cmax across four treatment sequences

  no effect, differences in dAUC and dCmax not significant

  Not recorded as a finding: sentence is agentless and compares four regimens, not pantoprazole against its absence; recorded as a PK exposure lane question, not an outcome node

  Differences in dAUC and dose-adjusted maximum concentration (dCmax) were not significant.

  PMID:25913040 · one of two readings recorded this

• cisplatin-related nephrotoxicity

  no effect

  we did not detect a statistical or clinically meaningful abrogation of cisplatin‐related ototoxicity or nephrotoxicity

  PMID:29445029 · one of two readings recorded this

• cisplatin-related ototoxicity

  no effect

  we did not detect a statistical or clinically meaningful abrogation of cisplatin‐related ototoxicity or nephrotoxicity

  PMID:29445029 · one of two readings recorded this

• degree of urinary NAG elevation

  no effect

  we were unable to detect differences in the degree of NAG elevations with and without pantoprazole

  PMID:29445029 · one of two readings recorded this

• GFR estimated from cystatin C (GFRcysC) after cisplatin

  decreases

  GFRcysC was less variable and consistently demonstrated a 10%–15% acute, reversible decrease in GFR on day 8 after cisplatin infusions

  PMID:29445029 · one of two readings recorded this

• high-frequency hearing threshold after six cycles, pantoprazole vs historical controls

  no effect, p = 0.18

  there was no difference in high‐frequency hearing threshold in patients receiving pantoprazole versus historical controls (p =.18)

  PMID:29445029 · one of two readings recorded this

• high-frequency hearing threshold change from baseline to before cycle 3

  no effect

  There was no difference in change in high‐frequency hearing threshold in these groups prior to cycle 3

  PMID:29445029 · one of two readings recorded this

• urinary NAG after cisplatin

  increases

  Urinary NAG levels were increased on days 2 and 8 after cisplatin and returned to baseline by day 21 of the treatment cycle

  PMID:29445029 · one of two readings recorded this

• urinary NAG after cisplatin

  no effect

  Urinary NAG levels were increased on days 2 and 8 after cisplatin and returned to baseline by day 21 of the treatment cycle

  PMID:29445029 · one of two readings recorded this

• urinary NAG after cisplatin

  increases

  Urinary NAG levels were increased on days 2 and 8 after cisplatin and returned to baseline by day 21 of the treatment cycle

  PMID:29445029 · one of two readings recorded this

• baseline modified WOMAC pain score, overall

  Overall mean baseline-modified WOMAC pain score was 64.41±12.99 mm

  PMID:30233140 · one of two readings recorded this

• baseline modified WOMAC pain score

  the mean baseline scores for the nimesulide/pantoprazole and naproxen/esomeprazole groups were 64.66±12.36 and 64.15±13.60 mm, respectively

  PMID:30233140 · one of two readings recorded this

• baseline VAS score of dyspeptic symptoms

  no effect, p = 0.12

  The baseline VAS score for dyspeptic symptoms was 50.57±20.42 mm in the group that used naproxen+esomeprazole and 49.44±22.32 mm in the group that used nimesulide+ pantoprazole, and there was no statistically significant difference between them (P=0.120)

  PMID:30233140 · one of two readings recorded this

• difference in mean change in modified WOMAC pain score

  no effect

  After 14 days, the difference was 0.45 mm (95% CI: −3.29 to 4.19 mm)

  PMID:30233140 · one of two readings recorded this

• difference in mean change in modified WOMAC pain score

  no effect

  The difference in mean change in the modified WOMAC pain score after 7 days of treatment between groups was 2.33 mm (95% CI: −1.22 to 5.89 mm)

  PMID:30233140 · one of two readings recorded this

• mean change in modified WOMAC pain subscale, VAS version 0-100 mm, at 7 and 14 days; fixed-dose nimesulide/pantoprazole versus fixed-dose naproxen/esomeprazole

  Not recorded as a finding: the comparison was against another active treatment

  The difference in mean change in the modified WOMAC pain score after 7 days of treatment between groups was 2.33 mm (95% CI: −1.22 to 5.89 mm).

  PMID:30233140 · one of two readings recorded this

• overall frequency of adverse event episodes, between-arm comparison

  no effect, p = 0.526, n = 733

  There were 733 episodes of adverse events: 366 episodes (50%) in the nimesulide/pantoprazole group and 367 episodes (50%) in the naproxen/esomeprazole group (P=0.526)

  PMID:30233140 · one of two readings recorded this

• complete resection rate

  The rates of en bloc resection, complete resection, and curative resection were 98.4%, 92.1%, and 88.7%, respectively

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• curative resection rate

  The rates of en bloc resection, complete resection, and curative resection were 98.4%, 92.1%, and 88.7%, respectively

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• delayed bleeding, univariate

  no effect, p = 0.603

  significant intraprocedural bleeding or early bleeding was not related with the incidence of delayed bleeding (p=0.466 and p=0.603, respectively)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• delayed bleeding, univariate

  increases, p = 0.007

  larger resected specimen size/area (p<0.001 and p=0.007, respectively)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• delayed bleeding, univariate

  increases, p = 0.001

  larger resected specimen size/area (p<0.001 and p=0.007, respectively)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• delayed bleeding, univariate

  increases, p = 0.001

  longer procedural/coagulation time (p=0.019/p=0.001)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• delayed bleeding, univariate

  increases, p = 0.019

  longer procedural/coagulation time (p=0.019/p=0.001)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• delayed bleeding, univariate

  no effect, p = 0.466

  significant intraprocedural bleeding or early bleeding was not related with the incidence of delayed bleeding (p=0.466 and p=0.603, respectively)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• delayed postprocedural bleeding rate, all patients

  the postprocedural bleeding rate was 11.0% (early bleeding, 8.7%; delayed bleeding, 2.5%)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• delayed postprocedural bleeding rate

  no effect, p = 0.348

  delayed bleeding rate: 2.0% vs 3.1%, p=0.348

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• early bleeding, univariate

  increases, p = 0.018

  hemoclips were frequently used during ESD in patients with early bleeding (p=0.018)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• early bleeding, univariate

  increases, p = 0.001

  larger resected specimen size/area (p=0.017/p=0.001)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• early bleeding, univariate

  increases, p = 0.017

  larger resected specimen size/area (p=0.017/p=0.001)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• early bleeding, univariate

  increases, p = 0.001

  longer procedural/coagulation time (p=0.001/p=0.001)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• early bleeding, univariate

  increases, p = 0.001

  longer procedural/coagulation time (p=0.001/p=0.001)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• early bleeding, univariate

  increases, p = 0.026

  presence of fibrosis (p=0.026)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• early postprocedural bleeding rate, all patients

  the postprocedural bleeding rate was 11.0% (early bleeding, 8.7%; delayed bleeding, 2.5%)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• early postprocedural bleeding rate

  no effect, p = 0.178

  early bleeding rate: 10.2% vs 7.1%, p=0.178

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• en bloc resection rate

  The rates of en bloc resection, complete resection, and curative resection were 98.4%, 92.1%, and 88.7%, respectively

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• Helicobacter pylori positivity at baseline

  unclear, p = 0.011

  the I-group showed higher positivity for Helicobacter pylori (75.0% vs 63.9%; p=0.011)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• post-ESD ulcer status on second-look endoscopy

  no effect, p = 0.268

  Post-ESD ulcers on SLE did not differ between the two groups (p=0.268)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• postprocedural bleeding and significant intraprocedural bleeding after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection; continuous pantoprazole infusion versus intermittent pantoprazole dosing

  no effect, postprocedural bleeding 11.7% vs 10.2%, p = 0.374

  Not recorded as a finding: the comparison was against another active treatment

  Similarly, there were no significant differences in postprocedural bleeding rates between the C-group and I-group (postprocedural bleeding rate: 11.7% vs 10.2%, p=0.374; early bleeding rate: 10.2% vs 7.1%, p=0.178; delayed bleeding rate: 2.0% vs 3.1%, p=0.348).

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• postprocedural bleeding rate, all patients

  the postprocedural bleeding rate was 11.0% (early bleeding, 8.7%; delayed bleeding, 2.5%)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• postprocedural bleeding rate

  no effect, p = 0.374

  postprocedural bleeding rate: 11.7% vs 10.2%, p=0.374

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• severity of atrophic gastritis at baseline

  no effect, p = 0.478

  the severity of atrophic gastritis was not different between two groups (p=0.478)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• significant intraprocedural bleeding, all patients

  n = 99

  Significant intraprocedural bleeding was observed in 99 patients (24.7%)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• significant intraprocedural bleeding, multivariate

  increases

  larger resected specimen area (OR, 1.101; 95% CI, 1.066 to 1.136)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• significant intraprocedural bleeding, multivariate

  increases

  presence of fibrosis (OR, 2.286; 95% CI, 1.081 to 4.832)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• significant intraprocedural bleeding, multivariate

  increases

  relative to location in the middle third: OR, 2.694; 95% CI, 1.484 to 4.889

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• significant intraprocedural bleeding, multivariate

  increases

  relative to location in the upper third: OR, 8.971; 95% CI, 4.300 to 18.713

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• significant intraprocedural bleeding, univariate

  increases, p = 0.001

  presence of fibrosis (p=0.001)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• significant intraprocedural bleeding, univariate

  increases, p = 0.001

  proximal location (p<0.001)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• significant intraprocedural bleeding, univariate

  increases, p = 0.01

  submucosal invasion (p=0.010)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• significant intraprocedural bleeding

  no effect, p = 0.419

  significant intraprocedural bleeding was observed in 52 patients (25.4%) in the C-group and 47 (24.0%) in the I-group, with no statistical significance (p=0.419)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• time to onset of delayed bleeding

  The mean time to onset of delayed bleeding was 10.4 days (range, 3 to 19 days)

  PMID:30400726 · one of two readings recorded this

• amount of calorie received

  no effect, p = 0.562

  Amount of calorie received, ±SD(kcal) | 1458 ± 317 | 1478 ± 264 | 0.562

  PMID:32151119 · one of two readings recorded this

• baseline age

  no effect, p = 0.484

  Age ± SD, years | 65 ± 17 | 63 ± 19 | 0.484

  PMID:32151119 · one of two readings recorded this

• baseline APACHE II score

  no effect, p = 0.686

  APACHE II score ±SD | 19 ± 6 | 19 ± 6 | 0.686

  PMID:32151119 · one of two readings recorded this

• baseline BMI

  unclear, p = 0.044

  BMI ± SD | 27 ± 6 | 25 ± 6 | 0.044

  PMID:32151119 · one of two readings recorded this

• baseline calculated target calorie

  no effect, p = 0.666

  Calculated target calorie, ±SD(kcal) | 1487 ± 235 | 1464 ± 233 | 0.666

  PMID:32151119 · one of two readings recorded this

• baseline first-day GCS

  no effect, p = 0.26

  GCS (First day), ±SD | 13 ± 3 | 12 ± 4 | 0.260

  PMID:32151119 · one of two readings recorded this

• baseline hemoglobin

  no effect, p = 0.277

  Hemoglobin ±SD (g/dL) | 10.8 ± 2.2 | 10.5 ± 2.1 | 0.277

  PMID:32151119 · one of two readings recorded this

• baseline INR

  no effect, p = 0.543

  INR ± SD | 1.2 ± 0.2 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 0.543

  PMID:32151119 · one of two readings recorded this

• baseline modified NUTRIC score

  no effect, p = 0.991

  Modified NUTRIC score ±SD | 4 ± 2 | 4 ± 2 | 0.991

  PMID:32151119 · one of two readings recorded this

• daily SOFA score

  no effect, no significant difference

  Not recorded as a finding: Agentless sentence naming no arm; quote_not_self_supporting

  No significant difference was noted between study groups in terms daily SOFA scores (P > 0.05) (Table 2).

  PMID:32151119 · one of two readings recorded this

• duration of invasive and noninvasive mechanical ventilation, days

  no effect, no significant difference between study groups

  Not recorded as a finding: The only supporting sentence pools invasive and noninvasive ventilation and is not a between-arm sentence naming the arm

  The duration of invasive MV was 3 (range: 1–30) days and that of noninvasive MV was 1 (range: 1–6) day, with no significant difference in duration of invasive and noninvasive MV between the study groups (P > 0.05).

  PMID:32151119 · both readings recorded this

• duration of invasive mechanical ventilation

  no effect, p = 0.78

  Duration of invasive MV, days (range) | 4 (1–30) | 3 (1–9) | 0.780

  PMID:32151119 · one of two readings recorded this

• duration of noninvasive mechanical ventilation

  no effect, p = 0.275

  Duration of noninvasive MV, days (range) | 1 (1–3) | 2 (1–3) | 0.275

  PMID:32151119 · one of two readings recorded this

• duration of nutritional support

  increases, p = 0.004

  Duration of nutritional support, days (range) | 4 (2–33) | 3 (2–12) | 0.004

  PMID:32151119 · one of two readings recorded this

• ICU mortality rate

  no effect, 14% overall, similar between groups

  Not recorded as a finding: sentence says only 'similar' with no test statistic and names the arms by label; not recorded as no_effect

  The ICU mortality rate was 14% and similar between intervention and control groups.

  PMID:32151119 · one of two readings recorded this

• ICU mortality

  no effect, p = 0.103

  ICU mortality, n (%) | 24 (15) | 19 (12) | 0.103

  PMID:32151119 · one of two readings recorded this

• length of ICU stay

  increases, p = 0.006

  Length of ICU stay, days (range) | 5 (2–36) | 3 (2–105) | 0.006

  PMID:32151119 · one of two readings recorded this

• overt GI bleeding

  no effect

  Overt GI bleeding, n (%) | 1 (0.65) | 0 (0) | -

  PMID:32151119 · one of two readings recorded this

• overt upper GI bleeding, clinician-recorded (coffee-ground emesis, hematemesis, melena, hematochezia)

  Not recorded as a finding: No outcome node for upper GI bleeding incidence

  Overt GI bleeding was observed in one patient in oral/enteral nutrition plus pantoprazole group (0.65%).

  PMID:32151119 · one of two readings recorded this

• SOFA score, fifth day

  no effect, p = 0.548

  SOFA scores, (range) First day Third day Fifth day Seventh day | 4.00 (1–12) 3.00 (1–11) 4.00 (0–13) 4.00 (2–12) | 3.00 (0–11) 4.00 (2–11) 4.00 (1–11) 4.00 (2–9) | 0.824 0.053 0.548 0.865

  PMID:32151119 · one of two readings recorded this

• SOFA score, first day

  no effect, p = 0.824

  SOFA scores, (range) First day Third day Fifth day Seventh day | 4.00 (1–12) 3.00 (1–11) 4.00 (0–13) 4.00 (2–12) | 3.00 (0–11) 4.00 (2–11) 4.00 (1–11) 4.00 (2–9) | 0.824 0.053 0.548 0.865

  PMID:32151119 · one of two readings recorded this

• SOFA score, seventh day

  no effect, p = 0.865

  SOFA scores, (range) First day Third day Fifth day Seventh day | 4.00 (1–12) 3.00 (1–11) 4.00 (0–13) 4.00 (2–12) | 3.00 (0–11) 4.00 (2–11) 4.00 (1–11) 4.00 (2–9) | 0.824 0.053 0.548 0.865

  PMID:32151119 · one of two readings recorded this

• SOFA score, third day

  no effect, p = 0.053

  SOFA scores, (range) First day Third day Fifth day Seventh day | 4.00 (1–12) 3.00 (1–11) 4.00 (0–13) 4.00 (2–12) | 3.00 (0–11) 4.00 (2–11) 4.00 (1–11) 4.00 (2–9) | 0.824 0.053 0.548 0.865

  PMID:32151119 · one of two readings recorded this

• acute kidney injury incidence, odds ratio

  OR 0.89 (95% CI, 0.65 to 1.21)

  Not recorded as a finding: Sentence reports an odds ratio and interval with no direction word; direction_not_in_words

  The odds ratio for the effect of pantoprazole on incident CKD was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1.25) and on AKI was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.65 to 1.21).

  PMID:38602780 · one of two readings recorded this

• AKI

  no effect

  on AKI was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.65 to 1.21)

  PMID:38602780 · one of two readings recorded this

• incident CKD

  no effect

  The odds ratio for the effect of pantoprazole on incident CKD was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1.25)

  PMID:38602780 · one of two readings recorded this

• rate of eGFR change, adjusted difference

  decreases

  pantoprazole had a 0.27 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year greater decline in eGFR (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11 to 0.43)

  PMID:38602780 · one of two readings recorded this

• rate of eGFR change per year, randomization to open-label extension (COMPASS post hoc); abstract states no estimating equation

  decreases, 0.27 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year greater decline in eGFR, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.43

  Not recorded as a finding: the paper never states the instrument the node requires

  In adjusted analyses, pantoprazole had a 0.27 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year greater decline in eGFR (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11 to 0.43).

  PMID:38602780 · one of two readings recorded this

• rate of eGFR change

  decreases

  The pantoprazole rate of eGFR change was −1.64 (SD 4.47) ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year

  PMID:38602780 · one of two readings recorded this

• rate of eGFR change

  The placebo rate of eGFR change was −1.41 (SD 4.45) ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year

  PMID:38602780 · one of two readings recorded this

• change in Heartburn score from baseline, within-arm

  decreases, p = 0.0091

  a statistically significant improvement in the Heartburn score from baseline to week 24 was observed in the test group (p-value 0.0091)

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• change in Heartburn score from baseline

  no effect, p = 0.934

  Change from baseline to week 12 | −0.059 ± 0.5409 | −0.053 ± 0.5137 | 0.9340

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• change in Heartburn score from baseline

  no effect, p = 0.1315

  Change from baseline to week 24 | −0.111 ± 0.5201 a | −0.105 ± 0.6018 | 0.1315

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• change in Lanza score from baseline, within-arm

  no effect, p = 0.4097

  compared to the comparator group (p-value 0.4097)

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• change in Lanza score from baseline, within-arm

  decreases, p = 0.0015

  a statistically significant improvement in the Lanza score from baseline to week 24 was observed in the test group (p-value 0.0015)

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• change in Lanza score from baseline

  decreases, p = 0.0581

  Change from baseline to week 12 | −0.054 ± 0.7424 | 0.153 ± 0.7811 | 0.0581

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• change in Lanza score from baseline

  no effect, p = 0.3691

  Change from baseline to week 24 | −0.208 ± 0.7977 a | −0.092 ± 0.9685 | 0.3691

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• change in number of erosions from baseline, within-arm

  no effect, p = 0.3763

  compared to the comparator group (p-value 0.3763)

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• change in number of erosions from baseline, within-arm

  decreases, p = 0.0118

  a statistically significant improvement in the number of erosions from baseline to week 24 was observed in the test group (p-value 0.0118)

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• change in number of erosions from baseline

  decreases, p = 0.047

  Change from baseline to week 12 | −0.215 ± 2.6523 | 0.528 ± 2.4551 | 0.0470

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• change in number of erosions from baseline

  no effect, p = 0.0648

  Change from baseline to week 24 | −0.429 ± 2.0859 a | 0.329 ± 3.2224 | 0.0648

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• Heartburn score at baseline

  no effect, p = 0.0908

  Visit 1 (Baseline) | 0.325 ± 0.5098 | 0.447 ± 0.5265 | 0.0908

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• Heartburn score at week 12

  no effect, p = 0.2957

  Visit 5 (Week 12) | 0.235 ± 0.4554 | 0.303 ± 0.4624 | 0.2957

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• Heartburn score at week 24

  no effect, p = 0.2646

  Visit 7 (Week 24) | 0.176 ± 0.3825 | 0.250 ± 0.4655 | 0.2646

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lanza score at baseline

  no effect, p = 0.9481

  Visit 1 (Baseline) | 0.610 ± 0.8805 | 0.618 ± 0.8789 | 0.9481

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lanza score at week 12

  no effect, p = 0.1804

  Visit 5 (Week 12) | 0.577 ± 0.8713 | 0.750 ± 0.9457 | 0.1804

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lanza score at week 24

  no effect, p = 0.2646

  Visit 7 (Week 24) | 0.403 ± 0.7455 | 0.526 ± 0.8714 | 0.2646

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• non-responders (new gastroduodenal events)

  decreases, p = 0.0285

  Visit 5 (Week 12) | Proportion of Non-Responders | 15 (9.7) | 15 (19.7) | 10.0 (0.21; 21.32) & 0.0285

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• non-responders (new gastroduodenal events)

  decreases, p = 0.0228

  Visit 7 (Week 24) | Proportion of Non Responders | 17 (11.0) | 17 (22.4) | 11.33 (0.73; 21.93) & 0.0228

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• number of erosions at baseline

  no effect, p = 0.4119

  Visit 1 (Baseline) | 1.396 ± 2.4877 | 1.145 ± 2.0113 | 0.4119

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• number of erosions at week 12

  no effect, p = 0.4629

  Visit 5 (Week 12) | 1.228 ± 2.9158 | 1.528 ± 2.6695 | 0.4629

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• number of erosions at week 24

  no effect, p = 0.2787

  Visit 7 (Week 24) | 0.968 ± 2.5754 | 1.474 ± 3.6276 | 0.2787

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• patients not worsening in Lanza score (responders)

  no effect

  Proportion of Responders | 135 (87.7) | 59 (77.6)

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• patients not worsening in Lanza score (responders)

  no effect

  Proportion of Responders | 139 (90.3) | 64 (84.2)

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• patients worsening in Lanza score (non-responders)

  no effect, p = 0.0698

  Visit 5 (Week 12) | Proportion of Non-Responders | 14 (9.1) | 13 (17.1) | 8.66 (−1.38; 18.7) & 0.0698

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• patients worsening in Lanza score (non-responders)

  no effect, p = 0.1839

  Visit 7 (Week 24) | Proportion of Non Responders | 15 (9.7) | 12 (15.8) | 6.05 (−3.39; 15.49) & 0.1839

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• responders (no new gastroduodenal events)

  increases

  Proportion of Responders | 134 (87.0) | 57 (75.0)

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• responders (no new gastroduodenal events)

  increases

  Proportion of Responders | 137 (89.0) | 59 (77.6)

  PMID:39009075 · one of two readings recorded this

• abdominal bloating at week 24

  decreases, p = 0.001

  abdominal bloating (15.4% and 9.3% vs. 61.1%; p < 0.001 for both comparisons)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• abdominal bloating at week 24

  decreases, p = 0.001

  abdominal bloating (15.4% and 9.3% vs. 61.1%; p < 0.001 for both comparisons)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• abdominal bloating

  decreases, p = 0.001

  abdominal bloating (by 82.6%; p < 0.001)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• abdominal bloating

  decreases, p = 0.001

  abdominal bloating (by 69.7%; p = 0.001)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• abdominal rumbling

  decreases, p = 0.016

  abdominal rumbling (by 77.8%; p = 0.016)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• acute gastric/duodenal erosion or ulcer incidence rate

  The overall incidence rate of acute gastric/duodenal erosion or ulcer across the entire PP population was 20.3 per 100 patient-years (95% CI: 10.2–36.4)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• acute gastric/duodenal erosion or ulcer incidence

  n = 4

  11.1% (n = 4; 95% CI: 2.6–22.2) in the pantoprazole group

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• acute gastric/duodenal erosion or ulcer incidence

  n = 3

  7.0% (n = 3; 95% CI: 0.0–16.0) in the combination therapy group

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• acute gastric/duodenal erosion or ulcer incidence

  n = 4

  10.3% (n = 4; 95% CI: 2.1–20.0) in the rebamipide group

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• acute gastric/duodenal erosion or ulcer incidence

  n = 11

  9.3% (n = 11; 95% CI: 4.2–15.3) across the entire PP population

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• belching at week 24

  decreases, p = 0.039

  belching (0.0% vs. 11.1%; p = 0.039)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• belching

  decreases, p = 0.016

  belching (100% reduction, from 16.3% to 0.0%; p = 0.016)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• belching

  decreases, p = 0.016

  belching (by 77.8%; p = 0.016)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• complete mucosal healing (Lanza score = 0) at week 24

  increases, p = 0.05

  a higher rate of complete mucosal healing (Lanza score = 0) in the P + R cohort compared to the pantoprazole cohort (88.4% vs. 69.4%, respectively; p = 0.050)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• composite primary GI clinical and endoscopic events (ISTH/BARC bleeding, ulcer or erosions, obstruction/perforation, severe dyspepsia); fecal calprotectin and fecal zonulin; pantoprazole is the reference arm against rebamipide and pantoprazole plus rebamipide

  no effect

  Not recorded as a finding: the comparison was against another active treatment

  The global model did not reveal a statistically significant overall effect of the treatment groups (χ2 = 0.450, df = 2, p = 0.798).

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• epigastric discomfort at week 24

  decreases, p = 0.016

  epigastric discomfort (7.0% vs. 27.8%; p = 0.016)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• epigastric discomfort

  decreases, p = 0.001

  an 81.2% drop in epigastric discomfort (p < 0.001)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• epigastric discomfort

  decreases, p = 0.001

  epigastric discomfort (by 72.2%; p < 0.001)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• epigastric heaviness at week 24

  decreases, p = 0.037

  epigastric heaviness (4.7% vs. 22.2%; p = 0.037)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• epigastric heaviness

  decreases, p = 0.001

  an 88.9% decline in epigastric heaviness (p < 0.001)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• epigastric heaviness

  decreases, p = 0.004

  epigastric heaviness (by 60.0%; p = 0.004)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• epigastric pain

  decreases, p = 0.008

  epigastric pain (100% reduction, from 18.6% to 0.0%; p = 0.008)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• fecal calprotectin

  no effect, p = 0.53

  fecal calprotectin concentrations remained virtually unchanged in the pantoprazole group (183 [80; 216] vs. 174 [93; 251] µg/g at baseline; p = 0.530)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• fecal calprotectin

  decreases, p = 0.001

  the combination (P + R) therapy group (from 135 [79; 188] to 61 [42; 96] µg/g; p < 0.001)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• fecal calprotectin

  decreases, p = 0.001

  calprotectin levels dropped significantly in both the rebamipide group (from 139 [55; 225] to 78 [40; 101] µg/g; p < 0.001)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• fecal zonulin at week 24

  decreases, p = 0.002

  significantly lower in the rebamipide (225 ng/mL; p = 0.028) and P + R groups (182 ng/mL; p = 0.002) compared to the pantoprazole group (468 ng/mL)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• fecal zonulin at week 24

  decreases, p = 0.028

  significantly lower in the rebamipide (225 ng/mL; p = 0.028) and P + R groups (182 ng/mL; p = 0.002) compared to the pantoprazole group (468 ng/mL)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• fecal zonulin

  decreases, p = 0.042

  pantoprazole monotherapy led to a minimal 3.0% decrease in zonulin levels (from 531 [267; 643] to 468 [207; 581] ng/mL; p = 0.042)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• fecal zonulin

  decreases, p = 0.001

  47.1% (from 347 [173; 488] to 182 [81; 303] ng/mL; p < 0.001)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• fecal zonulin

  decreases, p = 0.001

  robust reductions of 45.1% (from 434 [266; 765] to 225 [120; 443] ng/mL; p < 0.001)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• flatulence at week 24

  decreases, p = 0.001

  flatulence (7.7% and 7.0% vs. 41.7%; p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• flatulence at week 24

  decreases, p = 0.001

  flatulence (7.7% and 7.0% vs. 41.7%; p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• flatulence

  decreases, p = 0.001

  flatulence (by 81.2%; p < 0.001)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• flatulence

  decreases, p = 0.022

  flatulence (by 75.0%; p = 0.022)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• heartburn frequency

  decreases, p = 0.021

  a 71.4% reduction in heartburn frequency (p = 0.021)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• heartburn

  decreases, p = 0.001

  an 87.5% reduction in heartburn (p = 0.001)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lanza scale overall distribution at week 24

  decreases, p = 0.046

  A statistically significant overall advantage was found for the combination (P + R) therapy group over the pantoprazole monotherapy group (p = 0.046)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• lower GI symptom prevalence at week 24

  decreases, p = 0.001

  lower GI symptoms were significantly less frequent in the rebamipide group (28.2%; p < 0.001) and the P + R group (23.3%; p < 0.001) than in the pantoprazole group (69.4%)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• lower GI symptom prevalence at week 24

  decreases, p = 0.001

  lower GI symptoms were significantly less frequent in the rebamipide group (28.2%; p < 0.001) and the P + R group (23.3%; p < 0.001) than in the pantoprazole group (69.4%)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• lower GI symptom prevalence

  decreases, p = 0.001

  lower GI symptoms decreased by 64.3% (from 65.1% to 23.3%; p < 0.001)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• lower GI symptom prevalence

  decreases, p = 0.001

  lower GI symptoms in this group decreased by 54.1% (from 61.5% to 28.2%; p = 0.001)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• lower GI symptoms

  no effect, p = 0.687

  pantoprazole monotherapy failed to provide significant relief for lower GI symptoms (p = 0.687)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• median GOS dyspepsia score at week 24

  decreases, p = 0.001

  both the rebamipide monotherapy and the combination (P + R) therapy groups achieved a substantially lower median GOS score compared to the pantoprazole monotherapy group (1 [1; 2] vs. 2 [1.25; 3]; p < 0.001 for both comparisons)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• median GOS dyspepsia score at week 24

  decreases, p = 0.001

  both the rebamipide monotherapy and the combination (P + R) therapy groups achieved a substantially lower median GOS score compared to the pantoprazole monotherapy group (1 [1; 2] vs. 2 [1.25; 3]; p < 0.001 for both comparisons)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• minor GI bleeding incidence rate

  The overall incidence rate of minor GIB within the PP cohort was 1.9 per 100 patient-years (95% CI: 0.1–10.3)

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• minor GI bleeding incidence

  2.8% (n = 1; 95% CI: 0.0–9.5) specifically within the pantoprazole monotherapy group

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

• minor GI bleeding incidence

  The incidence of minor GIB was 0.8% (n = 1; 95% CI: 0.0–2.5) across the entire PP population

  PMID:42783438 · one of two readings recorded this

The whole record — 235 rows