Ali 2016.

Methods	Parallel‐group randomised controlled trial
Participants	Baseline characteristics Number randomised: 10 participants Number analysed: 10 participants Pantoprazole Age (years; mean (SD)): ‐ (‐) Number of participants (n): 4 Gender (male/female; n): ‐ Placebo Age (years, mean (SD)): ‐ (‐) Number of participants (n): 6 Gender (male/female; n): ‐ Inclusion criteria Receiving > 5 doses of pantoprazole/placebo Being mechanically ventilated Exclusion criteria: ‐ Baseline imbalances: ‐
Interventions	Pantoprazole Dose (total/d): 40 mg Duration of treatment (days): ‐ Route: IV Intervention: IV pantoprazole (40 mg), mean 8.8 (0.3) doses Concomitant medications: mechanical ventilation Placebo Dose (total/d): ‐ Duration of treatment (days): ‐ Route: IV Intervention: placebo, mean 10.7 (1.1) doses Concomitant medications: ‐ Adherence to regimen: ‐ Duration of trial: ‐ Duration of follow‐up: ‐
Outcomes	Outcomes sought in review and reported in trial Clinically important GI bleeding Outcomes sought but not reported in trial VAP All‐cause mortality in hospital Duration of ICU stay Duration of intubation Blood transfusions Adverse events of interventions Outcomes reported in trial but not used in review ‐
Notes	Setting: ICU Source of funding: ‐ Conflicts of interest: ‐ Ethics approval: ‐ Informed consent: ‐ Clinical trials registration: ‐ Sample size calculation: ‐ Additional notes: ‐
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: mentioned only that participants were randomised to treatment. Not enough information on method of randomisation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: no information about allocation concealment reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: mentioned only that the trial was double‐blind. No information about the method of blinding
Blinding (detection bias) Clinically important upper GI bleeding	Low risk	Comment: mentioned that outcome assessment was done blinded to intervention. Presence of 1 or more macroscopic abnormalities (erythema or oedema, erosions, ulcerations, and nasogastric tube lesions) and GI bleeding was assessed, blinded to intervention, at endoscopy by a single experienced gastroenterologist Quote: "assessed, blinded to intervention, at endoscopy by a single experienced gastroenterologist"
Blinding (detection bias) Nosocomial pneumonia	Unclear risk	Comment: The outcome was not addressed in this trial
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Adverse reactions of interventions	Low risk	Comment: mentioned that outcome assessment was done blinded to intervention
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Comment: Conference abstract reports about 10 participants from a larger prospective trial. Those who received > 5 doses of pantoprazole or placebo (n = 84) were eligible for the endoscopy substudy, but unclear why data from only 10 participants are reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: Outcomes reported in Methods section are also reported in Results section
Other bias	Unclear risk	Comment: not enough information reported in conference abstract to assess other biases