Lee 2014.
Methods | Parallel‐group randomised controlled trial | |
Participants |
Baseline characteristics Number randomised: 60 participants Number analysed: 60 participants Esomeprazole
Famotidine
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Baseline imbalances: no significant difference for sex, age, GCS, AP‐II, intracranial pressure, and operation time between these 2 groups |
|
Interventions |
Esomeprazole
Famotidine
Adherence to regimen: ‐ Duration of trial: March 2007 to March 2010 Duration of follow‐up: 30 days |
|
Outcomes |
Outcomes sought in review and reported in trial
Outcomes sought in review but not reported in trial
Outcome reported in trial but not used in review
|
|
Notes |
Setting: Neurosurgical ICU, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei, Taiwan Source of funding: Quote: "This study was performed in the Far Eastern Memorial Hospital and was supported by the research grant FEMH‐94‐C‐016 from the Far Eastern Memorial Hospital" Conflicts of interest: Quote: "All contributing authors declare no conflicts of interest" Ethics approval: Quote: "This study was approved by the Research Ethics Review Committee of the Far Eastern Memorial Hospital" Informed consent: Quote: "After explaining the study purpose and obtaining written consent from their family members" Clinical trials registration: ‐ Sample size calculation: ‐ Sponsorship source: supported by the research grant FEMH‐94‐ C‐016 from the Far Eastern Memorial Hospital |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote: "The patients were randomly allocated to two groups" Comment: not enough details reported |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: no details reported |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Comment: no details on blinding reported, but lack of blinding is unlikely to introduce bias to the outcomes or outcome measures |
Blinding (detection bias) Clinically important upper GI bleeding | Low risk | Quote: "[We] defined upper gastrointestinal bleeding as tarry stool, haematemesis, drainage of more than 60 mL coffee
ground substance from nasogastric tube, or decreased haemoglobin level more than 2 g/dL with proved lesions by
endoscopic examination. We also defined positive stool occult blood test as occult bleeding" Comment: Outcome was measured objectively |
Blinding (detection bias) Nosocomial pneumonia | Low risk | Quote: "We defined ventilator‐associated pneumonia as pneumonia occurring after 48 hours of ventilator use that fulfils three or more of the following four criteria: (1) presence of persistent (> 48 hours) or new onset infiltration in CXR; (2) positive sputum smear (with < 10 epithelial cells per low‐power field, 100×, and > 25 white blood cells per low‐power field or presence of polymorphonuclear cells with phagocytosis); (3) fever with body temperature > 38.3°C; and (4) leukocytosis > 12 × 10⁹/L" Comment: Outcome was measured objectively |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Adverse reactions of interventions | Unclear risk | Comment: no details reported |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Comment: no incomplete outcome data; all participants randomised at baseline were included in analyses |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Comment: no incomplete reporting of outcomes suspected. All outcomes listed in the Methods section were also reported in the Results section |
Other bias | Low risk | Comment: no other sources of bias suspected |